In re O'Keefe

New York Supreme Court

In re O'Keefe

154 Misc. 340, 277 N.Y.S. 101, 1934 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1935

New York Supreme Court·Decided July 20, 1934·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Rogers, J.

When a prisoner is ordered resentenced he is not “ discharged from prison by pardon or otherwise, nor is he released therefrom on parole.” But if the resentence does not provide for his incarceration in a State prison, then he is discharged from prison, and thereupon becomes entitled to the twenty dollars, as provided for in section 125 of the Correction Law.

[341]*341The record shows that the County Court of Rockland county, May 7, 1934, in resentencing the prisoner imposed an indeterminate sentence and suspended the execution thereof. This amounted to a discharge from State prison. The peremptory mandamus order should be allowed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Rogers, J.

When a prisoner is ordered resentenced he is not “ discharged from prison by pardon or otherwise, nor is he released therefrom on parole.” But if the resentence does not provide for his incarceration in a State prison, then he is discharged from prison, and thereupon becomes entitled to the twenty dollars, as provided for in section 125 of the Correction Law.

[341]*341The record shows that the County Court of Rockland county, May 7, 1934, in resentencing the prisoner imposed an indeterminate sentence and suspended the execution thereof. This amounted to a discharge from State prison. The peremptory mandamus order should be allowed.

In re O'Keefe, 154 Misc. 340, 277 N.Y.S. 101, 1934 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1935 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1934).

Pincite

154 Misc. 340 (In re O'Keefe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related