Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1915-04-14
SUPREME COURT
DECIDES AGAINST
JUDGE ASHFORD
Indeterminate Sentence Con.
troversy In Armstrong
Cast Settled

In a lengthy opinion handed down
| today the territorial supreme court
holds against Circuit Judge Ashford
on the question of the validity of the
territorys indeterminate sentence
statute. The opinion comes in the
| case of William F. Armstrong, recent
| ~ convicted Of embezZlement, who
| was sentenced by Judge Ashford to
serve a definite term of three years
in prison.
Under the territorial statute such
sentences shall be for an indefinite
or indeterminate period; in the Arm
strong case the law says the sentence
shall be Of not more than 10 years
imprisonment"
Armstrong, who carried his case to
the supreme court on a large number
of exceptions, will now be re-sen-
fenced, under the order of the higher
tribunal which says:
THE judgment imposing sentence
against the defendant is set aside, and
the case is remanded to the circuit
court with instructions to render
judgment sentencing the defendant
pursuant to the provisions of the in
Discriminate sentence law"
Immediately after his accession to
the bench as first judge of the first
circuit, Judge Ashford took issue
with the territorial statute and there
after, for about year now, has given
all convicted persons a definite SEN
tence. A large number of prisoners in
Oahu prison are therefore serving de-
finite terms. 1t is rather expected
that a large crop of habeas corpus
cases will develop now, many of these
men returning to court to obtain SEN
fences in accord with the law. This
is problematical, however.
Discussing the question the supreme
court opinion, written by Associate
Justice R. p. Quarles and concurred in
by Associate Justice E. M. Watson and
Judge w. L. Whitney, the latter Sit
ting in place of Chief Justice A. G..
NJ Robertson, says:
The courts of the many states that
have adopted the indeterminate SEN
tenee law hold that it does not inter
fere with the judicial power of the
courts, does not interfere with Judi.
cial discretion, does not interfere with
the power ofFthe governor to grant
pardons, and; is not unconstitutional.
Seventeen cases sustaining this opin-
ion are here cited. The opinion con-
tinues:
In the last case cited, the court
said: The argument addressed to us
is that the fixing of T. sentence is . /
judicial and not a legislative act, and
therefore the act of 1911, which at
tempts to fix the sentences to be i'm
posed, is an assumption of judicial
power-an encroachment upon the
provisions invoked. The
underlying the argument
is palpably unsound. The pronounc.
ing, of a sentence is, undoubtedly, a |
judicial act. But the punishment
which the sentence pronounces comes
from the law itself. As Blackstone |
truly expresses it, under head OF
Judgment and Its Consequences, the
court must pronounce that judgment |
which the law hath annexed to the
crime 1t is further said that the |
statute in effect curtails the judicial
to be exercised by Ithe
Judge. Granting that it does, it is,
nevertheless, the valid exercise of leg |
islative power, under the constitution,
over crime"
Under the, authorities, apparently |
and in accord with the
spirit of the times, We are
to hold that our indeter-
statute is valid exercise of
legislative power, and constitutional
I'VE hold that the sentence, while /
It fails to fix a minimum of the term
Of imprisonment, is not void, but er-
roneous. The maximum fixed by the
statute, 10 years at hard labor, enters
into and becomes a part of the SEN
tence, as though incorporated there
IN, Notwithstanding any statement in
The sentence to the contrary"