Case ID: del_30/html/0488-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Peter Galliao vs. State of Delaware.
    Criminal Law—Discharge on Delay by State on Appeal.
    Defendant appealing, on conviction in the municipal court, to the Court of General Sessions, as entitled to under Const, art. 4, § 30, in view of the severity of sentence, but being still in custody because of inability to give a supersedas bond, is entitled to discharge from custody under such sentence, on the state being unable to proceed at the second term after the appeal, though the state, while not entitled to further continuance, may have the case retired for the present, but defendant will not be discharged from any other sentence which he is serving.
    
      (November 13, 1919.)
    Boyce and Rice, J. J., sitting.
    
      David J. Reinhardt, Attorney-General, for the State.
    
      Philip L. Garrett for the convict.
    Court of General Sessions for New Castle County,
    November Term, 1919.
    Information No. 150,
    September Term, 1919.
    Peter Galliao was informed against in the municipal court for the City of Wilmington, on a charge of assault and battery, and adjudged guilty, and he brings appeal. On motions for second continuance and to dismiss appeal.
    Defendant discharged from custody.
    Peter Galliao was adjudged guilty of assault and battery in the Municipal Court for the City of Wilmington on August 5,1919, and was sentenced to imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of $100. He, being unable to give a supersedeas bond, was committed, but subsequently took an appeal to the Court of General Sessions. Information on the appeal was filed at the September term following, and, because of the absence of the prosecuting witness, the case was continued to this, the November term, and the prosecuting witness still being absent and out of the jurisdiction, the state moved for a further continuance of the case. Counsel for the convict moved to dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute after the second term, which motion was opposed by the state.
   Per Curiam:

Article 4, § 30, of the Constitution of 1897 provides that there shall be an appeal to the Court of General Sessions in all cases in which the sentence shall be imprisonment exceeding one month, or a fine exceeding $100. Under this provision, the convict, though now in custody under sentence of the municipal court and unable to give a supersedeas bond, is entitled to an appeal to this court. The inability of the state to try the case at this, the second term since the appeal was taken, because of the absence of the prosecuting witness, does not warrant a further continuance of the case. The convict is at this term entitled to have the appeal proceeded with or to be discharged from custody pending the appeal. The state may have the case retired for the present. The convict will be discharged under the sentence imposed by the municipal court in this case but not from any other sentence for which he may be in custody.