Court Opinion

ID: 9688608
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 17:58:01.861857+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:40.580273
License: Public Domain

Yeager, J.,
dissenting.
I cannot find myself in agreement with the majority opinion in this case.
Section 29-2308, R. R. S. 1943, as pointed out in the majority opinion, confers authority for the reduction of sentence when in the opinion of this court the sentence rendered is excessive. This section makes it the duty of this court, when in its opinion a sentence is excessive, to render such sentence as in its opinion may be warranted by the evidence.
The majority opinion appears to me to be predicated upon the proposition that there being no bill of exceptions there is 510 evidence upon which to base a conclusion either that the sentence imposed was excessive or as to what would be an appropriate substitute therefor. ■
I agree that this conclusion finds support in former opinions of this court in at least some of which I have concurred. I do not agree however that the statute contains or should be construed to contain any such circumscription.
In my opinion when the Legislature employed the term “warranted by the evidence” it had in contemplation that which was evident on the face of the record whether it appeared in a bill of exceptions or was otherwise. apparent. This approach has, in my opinion, justice and reaspn on its side. The opposite approach, liker wise in my opinion, makes this court slave to unfortunate words uttered, it is • true, at a time when they were harmless.
The record in this case discloses that the plaintiff in error pleaded guilty to the charge of uttering what is commonly referred to as a no-fund check for $10. He was not sentenced but was placed on probation. The probation was conditioned, among other conditions, that *217he should not drink intoxicating liquor or become intoxicated. He violated his probation by becoming intoxicated. On finding of violation the court sentenced him to serve a term of not less than 1 year nor more than 1 year and 5 days in the State Reformatory for Men.
The statutory penalties for uttering a no-fund check are not less than 1 nor more than 10 years in the penitentiary, or not less than 30 days nor more than 6 months in the county jail, or a fine of not less than $50 nor more than $500.
The penalty for intoxication, first offense, is a fine of not more than $50 or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 30 days, and for a second offense, imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 60 days.
In the light of these things which are evident from the record and common judicial experience it appears to me that the sentence imposed was a violation of judicial discretion and grossly excessive.
It may be contended and it may be true that there were matters not appearing on the record which influenced the district court in the fixation of sentence. If however this is true they do not appear in the journal entry which contains the basis for the revocation of probation.
I think it will be agreed that nothing outside the record may be considered in exculpation of the plaintiff in error. Is it not likewise true that outside matters may not be considered or speculated upon and given weight in inculpation?
I cannot escape the conclusion that the sentence in this case is excessive and that it should be reduced by this court.