The principles by which this issue should be determined have been firmly fixed in our previous decisions. In Mann v. Commonwealth, 177 Va. 875, 14 S.E.2d 283, a verdict of guilty was accompanied by a written recommendation signed by each member of the jury that the sentence be suspended. This recommendation the trial court refused to follow.
The fact that the jury foreman recommended that the trial court impose concurrent sentences was considered by the trial court and rejected. This issue was addressed succinctly in Mann v. Commonwealth, 177 Va. 875, 14 S.E.2d 283 (1941): The province of the jury in a criminal case is to determine the innocence or guilt of the accused, and, if they find the accused guilty, to fix his punishment.
Following the recording of the verdict the order states that the court refused the recommendation of the jury that one year of the term of punishment fixed by it be suspended. It was clearly within the power of the court to disregard that recommendation. Mann v. Commonwealth, 177 Va. 875, 14 S.E.2d 283. But that ruling having been made with respect to the verdict, the order shows no further action on the verdict nor indeed any further reference to it, but proceeds to direct that a copy of the order be sent to the penitentiary and places the defendant in charge of the guard authorized to receive him, "therein to be confined and treated in the manner prescribed by law." There is not enough in this order " 'to reasonably and fairly carry conviction that a judgment was in fact rendered,' " and there is no necessary inference from what is said in the order that judgment was in fact pronounced.