Miller v. Alderhold,
288 U.S. 206 (1933)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Miller v. Alderhold, 288 U.S. 206 (1933)

Miller v. Alderhold

No. 138

Argued January 9, 1933

Decided February 6, 1933

288 U.S. 206


1. One upon whom sentence in a criminal case has been suspended may at any time request the court to pronounce judgment, and in the absence of such request must be deemed to have consented to the indefinite delay. P. 288 U. S. 210.

2. In a criminal case in the federal district court, an order for a permanent suspension of sentence is void. Ex parte United States, 242 U. S. 27. P. 288 U. S. 209.

3. Final judgment in a criminal case means sentence, and a void order purporting permanently to suspend sentence is neither a final nor a valid judgment. P. 288 U. S. 210.

Page 288 U. S. 207

4. Where judgment has not been pronounced upon a verdict during the term at which it was rendered, the cause continues on the docket and necessarily passes over to a succeeding term for final judgment or other appropriate action. P. 288 U. S. 211.

5. Where the district court, in a criminal case in which a verdict has been duly returned, orders sentence suspended, it is not without jurisdiction thereafter, either at the same or a subsequent term, to impose sentence, even though the intent of the order of suspension was to suspend sentence permanently. P. 288 U. S. 211.

56 F.2d 152 affirmed.

Certiorari, 287 U.S. 592, to review a judgment affirming a judgment dismissing a writ of habeas corpus.

Page 288 U. S. 209

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.