People ex rel. Berman v. Marsden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Berman v. Marsden

3 A.D.2d 980, 162 N.Y.S.2d 993, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5480

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 15, 1957

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 3 A.D.2d 980 (People ex rel. Berman v. Marsden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People ex rel. Berman v. Marsden, 3 A.D.2d 980, 162 N.Y.S.2d 993, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5480 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed on the law and facts, without cost of this appeal to either party, writ sustained, and relator discharged from custody. Memorandum: Upon a plea of guilty to violation of an ordinance of the City of Syracuse (ch. 31-a, § 2) relating to the licensing of secondhand dealers the relator, on May 14, 1955 was sentenced to the Onondaga County Penitentiary for a term of 150 days. Execution of sentence was suspended and the relator was placed on probation for one year. Whether the court had authority to impose the conditions which it did, it is not necessary to decide. Nor is it necessary to make a determination as to whether the terms of the probation were violated. On October 4, 1955, the relator was charged with violation of probation. Instead of conducting a prompt hearing on these charges, the matter was adjourned from time to time until March 6, 1957 at which time, after a hearing, probation was revoked and the sentence of 150 days put into effect. It thus appears that suspension of the execution of sentence was revoked, subsequent to the expiration of the maximum sentence and subsequent to the expiration of the probation of one year. The court was without jurisdiction to so proceed “ unless the defendant shall have been convicted of another crime committed during such period.” (Code Grim. Pro., § 470-a.) There was no such other conviction. We are unable to agree with the Special Term that the relator was estopped in any way from relying on said section 470-a. The proceedings of the court were under the control and direction of the Judge. All concur. (Appeal from an order of Onondaga Special Term dismissing a writ of habeas corpus and remanding relator to the custody of the superintendent of Onondaga Penitentiary.) Present — Vaughan, J. P., Kimball, Williams, Bastow and Goldman, JJ.

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

Order reversed on the law and facts, without cost of this appeal to either party, writ sustained, and relator discharged from custody. Memorandum: Upon a plea of guilty to violation of an ordinance of the City of Syracuse (ch. 31-a, § 2) relating to the licensing of secondhand dealers the relator, on May 14, 1955 was sentenced to the Onondaga County Penitentiary for a term of 150 days. Execution of sentence was suspended and the relator was placed on probation for one year. Whether the court had authority to impose the conditions which it did, it is not necessary to decide. Nor is it necessary to make a determination as to whether the terms of the probation were violated. On October 4, 1955, the relator was charged with violation of probation. Instead of conducting a prompt hearing on these charges, the matter was adjourned from time to time until March 6, 1957 at which time, after a hearing, probation was revoked and the sentence of 150 days put into effect. It thus appears that suspension of the execution of sentence was revoked, subsequent to the expiration of the maximum sentence and subsequent to the expiration of the probation of one year. The court was without jurisdiction to so proceed “ unless the defendant shall have been convicted of another crime committed during such period.” (Code Grim. Pro., § 470-a.) There was no such other conviction. We are unable to agree with the Special Term that the relator was estopped in any way from relying on said section 470-a. The proceedings of the court were under the control and direction of the Judge. All concur. (Appeal from an order of Onondaga Special Term dismissing a writ of habeas corpus and remanding relator to the custody of the superintendent of Onondaga Penitentiary.) Present — Vaughan, J. P., Kimball, Williams, Bastow and Goldman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.2d 980, 162 N.Y.S.2d 993, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-berman-v-marsden-nyappdiv-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack