People ex rel. Edmonds v. Warden of Queens House of Detention for Men

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Edmonds v. Warden of Queens House of Detention for Men

25 A.D.2d 860, 269 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4316

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

DecidedMay 9, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 860 (People ex rel. Edmonds v. Warden of Queens House of Detention for Men) 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. Edmonds v. Warden of Queens House of Detention for Men, 25 A.D.2d 860, 269 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4316 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding, relator appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered June 22, 1964, which dismissed the writ. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Absent a showing of unreasonable delay between plea or verdict and sentence, the failure of a Trial Judge to follow literally the statutory mandate that a time for pronouncing judgment be fixed after a plea or verdict of guilty (Code Crim. Pro., § 471) does not support a claim of right in habeas corpus designed to effect resentence, where it appears that the relator received (Code Crim. Pro., § 472) due notice of sentence (People ex rel. Wilkes v. Doherty, 25 A D 2d 451; People ex rel. Hunter v. Fay, 25 A D 2d 568).

Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a habeas corpus proceeding, relator appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered June 22, 1964, which dismissed the writ. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Absent a showing of unreasonable delay between plea or verdict and sentence, the failure of a Trial Judge to follow literally the statutory mandate that a time for pronouncing judgment be fixed after a plea or verdict of guilty (Code Crim. Pro., § 471) does not support a claim of right in habeas corpus designed to effect resentence, where it appears that the relator received (Code Crim. Pro., § 472) due notice of sentence (People ex rel. Wilkes v. Doherty, 25 A D 2d 451; People ex rel. Hunter v. Fay, 25 A D 2d 568).

Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 860, 269 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-edmonds-v-warden-of-queens-house-of-detention-for-men-nyappdiv-1966.