DocketNumber: No. 4250
Citation Numbers: 35 F.2d 863
Filed Date: 11/20/1929
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/23/2022
Appellant was indicted for unlawfully transporting and possessing intoxicating liquor. He pleaded guilty, and the court deferred sentence for a number of months; then, on calling the case for dis
The only proposition urged as error is the action of the court with respect to the affidavit.
Upon appellant’s plea of guilty, the extent of the penalty imposed was wholly within the discretion of the court, subject only to the statutory limitations. The manner of seizure of the liquor was then wholly immaterial. The plea of guilty dispensed with the necessity of any proof; but the court, in its discretion, could inquire into the nature of the offense, and hear proof or statements of mitigating circumstances. This being wholly for the court’s information, it is difficult to see how error could intervene in what the court heard or refused to hear thereon. It does not appear that anything was excluded on beh'alf of appellant which might tend to minimize the offense or to mitigate the penalty, although opportunity therefor was offered by the court. There is nothing in the record which suggests error — surely there was none in refusing leave to file the affidavit.
The judgment is affirmed.