The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1894-04-24
OPINION or THE COURT BY BICK-
ERTON. !.

The defendant was first charged in
the District G urt of Hawaiian, Isl
and of Kauai, with larceny lin the
4th degree) by stealing d redwood
board valued at 81 so, to which
charge he pleaded guilty, and was
sentenced by the magistrate to i'm
| prisoumeut al hard labor for six
mOutb- and costs 50, this being the
maximum penalty prescribed by the
statute. The defendant appealed to
the Circuit Court of the Fifth Judi
cial Circuit and the matter came on
at the March Term 1894 Of said
Court. The Deputy Attorney Gen
eral made the following motion:
"And now comes the Attorney Gen
eral by his Deputy G. K Wilder,
and moves that the appeal in the
abovs entitled case be dismissed for
that ~ defendant having pleaded
guilty in the District Court 10 the
charge of larceny, no appeal lies
from the judgment of said Court, the
sentence being legal, it being an ap-
peal without jury.
"(2). The notice of appeal as re-
quired by law has not been filed"
The Court granted the motion and
dismissed the appeal, aud the De
PENDANT took EXCEPTIONS. and the
matter now comes here on a bill of
exceptions duly allowed by the pre-
siding Judge at the said term. The
first question is, has the defendant a
right to appeal for mitigation of sen
te ace, after he has pleaded guilty in
the lower Court. 1t has always been,
and is now, allowed in our Courts;
numerous cases might be cited as to
this. In fact we ire not aware of
any case IN orr Courts where this
right of appeal has been questioned
before. The plea of guilty admits
the facts charged, consequently there
is no issue Of fact for the jury to
pass upon; it becomes a question for
the appellate Court to decide from
the circumstances of the case as pre-
scented to it whether the sentence was
excessive It would DE great hard
ship for defendant where an exces
sive sentence had been imposed,
through the prejudice or bias. per
haps temper Of magistrate, to be
deprived of any appeal and have to
submit to an unjust punishment.
The sentence may be legal, and yet
unjust, and inconsistent. In a case
of this nature there could be no ap
peal to this Court on points of law,
for the facts were admitted by the
plea of guilty, and the sentence was
within the law as regards the term
of imprisonment imposed. Sec. 68,
Chap. 81, Laws of 1892, regulates
how appeals shall be taken and |
reads" Appeals shall be allowed |
from all decisions of District Magis |
trates in all matters, whether civil or
criminal, to the Circuit Court of the !
same Circuit whenever the party |
appealing shall file notice of his
appeal and shall pay costs *"
There is nothing in the law as to
appeals not being allowed where
plea Of guilty has been made or in
mitigation of sentence; the law is
silent as to any exceptions in such
cases; the language is clear that
appeals shall be GLlOIced in all matters
to the Circuit Court. The law
directs these appeals to the Circuit
Court, and it must consequently be
that that Court shall enter
tain and hear such appeals when it
appears that ali the requirements of
the statute have been complied with
in regard to the perfecting of the
appeal. This right of appeal is re-
in several cases in our own
reports, viz:
The King V. Abigail Maiksi, 6
Haw. p. 145.
The King V. Yok Lau, 7 Haw.
p. 5S4.
Tire Queen V. Fernandez, s Haw.
p. 273.
This right is not only recognized
n our own Courts, but it is also re
,oguized in United States and Eng
ish Courts. In the case of the
People Y. Richmond, 81 Mich, p.
l03, we find it recognized; also in the
,ase Of the Queen V. The Justices of
Surrey and Bell, Law Rep. Queens
Bench Division, Vol. 2 p. 7I9. In
hat case an appeal was taken
against a summary conviction and
he only ground stated ia the notice OF
appeal was that the punishment in
iicted was excessive, aud the appel
ate conTt entertained the appeal
s plea OF guilty Is always eoDsid
,red by the Court IN imposing the
penalty in the case at bar, the Court I
Toes no5 seem TO have considered
his, but sentenced the defendant 10
lie highest penalty allowed by the
aw VIZ, six months imprisonment at
hard labor. The value Of the pro
1erty stolen was only alleged to be
$50; under these circumstances it
appears to Us that the punishment