People ex rel. Schoen v. Murphy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Schoen v. Murphy

243 A.D. 216, 276 N.Y.S. 837, 1935 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7034

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

DecidedJanuary 11, 1935

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 243 A.D. 216 (People ex rel. Schoen v. Murphy) 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. Schoen v. Murphy, 243 A.D. 216, 276 N.Y.S. 837, 1935 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7034 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinions

Hill, P. J.

The order dismissing the writ should be reversed and the matter remitted to the County Court for proof concerning the assertion that on August 17, 1934, the New York State Parole Board granted the relator a parole on his indeterminate sentence of three and a half years minimum to ten years maximum for robbery in the second degree. The sentence of five to ten years additional for committing the crime while armed with a pistol is illegal for want of jurisdiction. “ The fact that defendant was armed with a dangerous weapon during the commission of the crime is no part of the crime itself.” (People v. Krennen, 264 N. Y. 108, 110.) [217]*217Defendant’s plea of guilty to the crime of robbery in the second degree was not an admission that he was armed with a dangerous weapon during the commission of the crime, for this crime may be committed without the use of such a weapon. “After plea, the judge should conduct an inquiry and take testimony, if necessary, before passing sentence.” (People v. Krennen, supra, 109.) The record here indicates that no inquiry by the taking of testimony or otherwise was conducted. The indorsement on the cover of the indictment, “ and it appearing that each was armed at the time of the crime, said imprisonment is increased by State Prison not less than 5 years 0 months, nor more than 10 years 0 months for being so armed,” gave no jurisdiction to pronounce the additional sentence. On habeas corpus the defendant has the right to show that the committing magistrate acted without authority, notwithstanding the commitment recites the necessary facts to give jurisdiction; no court or officer can acquire jurisdiction by the mere assertion of it. (People ex rel. Tweed v. Liscomb, 60 N. Y. 559, 572.) Habeas corpus is a proper remedy. (People ex rel. Hubert v. Kaiser, 206 N. Y. 46; People ex rel. Scharff v. Frost, 198 id. 110.)

McNamee and Heffernan, JJ., concur; Crapser, J., dissents, with an opinion, in which Rhodes, J., concurs.

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

Hill, P. J.

The order dismissing the writ should be reversed and the matter remitted to the County Court for proof concerning the assertion that on August 17, 1934, the New York State Parole Board granted the relator a parole on his indeterminate sentence of three and a half years minimum to ten years maximum for robbery in the second degree. The sentence of five to ten years additional for committing the crime while armed with a pistol is illegal for want of jurisdiction. “ The fact that defendant was armed with a dangerous weapon during the commission of the crime is no part of the crime itself.” (People v. Krennen, 264 N. Y. 108, 110.) [217]*217Defendant’s plea of guilty to the crime of robbery in the second degree was not an admission that he was armed with a dangerous weapon during the commission of the crime, for this crime may be committed without the use of such a weapon. “After plea, the judge should conduct an inquiry and take testimony, if necessary, before passing sentence.” (People v. Krennen, supra, 109.) The record here indicates that no inquiry by the taking of testimony or otherwise was conducted. The indorsement on the cover of the indictment, “ and it appearing that each was armed at the time of the crime, said imprisonment is increased by State Prison not less than 5 years 0 months, nor more than 10 years 0 months for being so armed,” gave no jurisdiction to pronounce the additional sentence. On habeas corpus the defendant has the right to show that the committing magistrate acted without authority, notwithstanding the commitment recites the necessary facts to give jurisdiction; no court or officer can acquire jurisdiction by the mere assertion of it. (People ex rel. Tweed v. Liscomb, 60 N. Y. 559, 572.) Habeas corpus is a proper remedy. (People ex rel. Hubert v. Kaiser, 206 N. Y. 46; People ex rel. Scharff v. Frost, 198 id. 110.)

McNamee and Heffernan, JJ., concur; Crapser, J., dissents, with an opinion, in which Rhodes, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D. 216, 276 N.Y.S. 837, 1935 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-schoen-v-murphy-nyappdiv-1935.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack