State Ex Rel. Foot v. District Court Et Al‪.‬

Submitted January 15, 1925. Supervisory Contract — Criminal Law — Suspension of Sentence — Revocation of Suspension — Commitment to Prison — When Unauthorized — State Board of Prison Commissioners — Jurisdiction. Criminal Law — Suspension of Sentence — Statute Applicable to Misdemeanors. 1. Under section 12078, Revised Codes of 1921, the district court has authority to suspend sentence and place the defendant on probation whether found guilty of a crime or a misdemeanor. Same — Judgment — Construction. 2. A judgment (of conviction for a misdemeanor) must be so construed as to give effect to every word and part of it, including such effects and consequences as follow by necessary legal implication from its terms. Same — Effect of Order of Suspension of Sentence. 3. The effect of an order of the district court suspending the sentence of one convicted of a misdemeanor is to place him under the control and management of the state board of prison commissioners and subject to such rules and regulations as it may see fit to make. Same — Revocation of Order of Suspension of Sentence — Commitment to Prison — When in Excess of Jurisdiction. 4. Under section 12085, Revised Codes, the length of the period of probation of a convicted defendant cannot be more than the maximum term for which he might have been imprisoned. Defendant was convicted of a violation of the liquor laws and sentenced to the county jail for ninety days, the sentence being suspended. A year thereafter the court revoked the suspension and ordered him committed to jail. Held, on application for writ of supervisory control, that by its order suspending the sentence, jurisdiction over the person of defendant became vested in the state board of prison commissioners, that the court, therefore, was without authority to order him committed, and, the term of his imprisonment having expired, that the board could not do so.