Court Opinion

ID: 9562222
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:23:55.327567+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:15.222723
License: Public Domain

ELLETT, Justice
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I concur in affirming the trial court in the habeas corpus proceeding but dissent from that part of the decision which would remand the case for a different sentence. *36The defendant was charged in the original complaint with two counts:
COUNT I
That the said Tommy Otis Fair, at the time and place aforesaid, did obtain the drug Dilaudid, (1), by fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or (2), by the concealment of a material fact, or (3), by the use of a false name and address, to-wit: Frank Meldo, 906 West 9th South;
COUNT II
That the said Tommy Otis Fair, at the time and place aforesaid, did utter a false or forged prescription.
He was bound over by the committing magistrate on the two charges, but the district attorney only charged him in the Information with the latter of the two charges.
The obtaining of a drug under Count I in the complaint is only a misdemeanor, while the uttering of a false or forged prescription is a felony. I think it is no con-cérn of ours that there is a difference in the penalties. Whether it is a more serious matter to utter a false or forged prescription than to obtain a drug by a false name or by a false or forged prescription, etc., is a matter for legislative determination, and that determination has been made.
The defendant was convicted on the crime with which he was charged in the Information. He then was properly sentenced for that crime.
The main opinion sends the case back for sentencing under a statute which has no relationship to the crime of which this defendant was found guilty. It compels the trial court to impose a sentence for the count which was ignored by the district attorney.
The reasoning of the main opinion seems to be the same as it would be should the defendant be charged with petit larceny (a misdemeanor) and burglary in the second degree (a felony). Burglary in the second degree is the entrance, and so forth, into a building with intent to steal. If the district attorney elected to try the defendant for entrance with intent to steal and not the actual stealing, we should not require the trial court to sentence the defendant when convicted to the misdemeanor term simply because we may have a private personal opinion that actual stealing, even though petit, is worse than entering with the intent to steal. Likewise, the obtaining of money by false pretenses, when the amount is fifty dollars or less, would be a misdemeanor. The forgery of a check for ten dollars is a felony. The reasoning of the main opinion would compel the trial court to sentence one who forged a check for a sum of fifty dollars or less and who received no money to the misdemeanor term because if he had received the money without forging, he *37could have only been sentenced to the county jail.
State v. Shondel referred to in the main opinion is not in point here, and even if it were, my dissent therein shows the fallacy of that case.
I would affirm the judgment of conviction and allow the sentence as imposed to stand.