Case ID: la_143/html/0505-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LECHE, J. O’NIELL, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(78 South. 751)
    No. 22998.
    STATE v. DESIMONE.
    (April 29, 1918.
    Rehearing Denied May 27, 1918.)
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    Criminal Law <S=o1020 — Appellate Jurisdiction — Supreme Court — Penalty—‘ ‘Actually Imposed.”
    Under Const, art. 85, giving the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction on questions of law in criminal eases, where an imprisonment exceeding six months is “actually imposed,” the court has no jurisdiction on appeal from a sentence imposing a fine of $250 and imprisonment for six months and upon failure to pay the fine three months’ additional imprisonment, as more than six months’ imprisonment was not “actually imposed.”
    O’Niell, J., dissenting.
    Appeal from Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu; Jerry Cline, Judge.
    Charlie Desimone was convicted of an offense and sentenced to pay a fine of $250 and to imprisonment for six months, and on his failure to pay the fine to three months’ additional imprisonment, and he appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    David R. Rosenthal, of Lake Charles, for appellant. A. V. Coco, Atty. Gen., and J. Sheldon Toomer, Dist. Atty., of Lake Charles (G. T. Hawkins, of Lake Charles, and Vernon A. Coco, of New Orleans, of counsel), for the State.
   LECHE, J.

The accused appeals from a sentence imposing upon him, a fine of $250 and imprisonment in the parish jail for six months, and in case of his failure to pay the .fine three months additional in the parish jail. The case is not within our jurisdiction. Upon the suggestion of the Attorney General and for the same reasons given in the cases of State v. Hamilton, 128 La. 92, 54 South. 482, and State v. Mitchell, 137 La. 1098, 69 South. 851, the appeal is dismissed.

O’NIELL, J.,

dissents for the reasons given in his dissenting opinion in State v. Mitchell, 69 South. 852, and in his concurring opinion in State v. Authement, 72 South. 741.