People ex rel. Schurman v. Ashworth

9 Misc. 2d 448, 67 N.Y.S.2d 179, 1945 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1453
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 31, 1945
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 9 Misc. 2d 448 (People ex rel. Schurman v. Ashworth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People ex rel. Schurman v. Ashworth, 9 Misc. 2d 448, 67 N.Y.S.2d 179, 1945 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1453 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1945).

Opinion

Benjamin F. Schreiber, J.

On January 19, 1944, upon his plea of guilty to the crime of petit larceny, the relator’s sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation.

On March 7, 1945 the relator was sentenced to the Penitentiary of the City of New York for violation of probation.

The relator contends that, since, when sentenced to the penitentiary, the court referred to him as hopeless ”, he was improperly sentenced for an indeterminate term in the penitentiary and should have been sentenced to a fixed term of one year or fined or both. (Penal Law, § 1937.)

Under section 203 of the Correction Law an offender may not be sentenced who is ‘ ‘ mentally or physically incapable of being substantially benefited by being committed to a correctional or reformatory institution ”.

Under the authorities, the possibility of benefit by such sentence is to be conclusively presumed from the very sentence, however incongruous. (People v. Thompson, 251 N. Y. 428; People ex rel. Standik v. Ashworth, 9 Misc 2d 444, affd. 266 App. Div. 775; People ex rel. Pastore v. Ashworth, 9 Misc 2d 445; People ex rel. Halle v. Ashworth, 9 Misc 2d 451.)

The court cannot agree with the relator’s contention that the term of his probation was tantamount to a parole and that [449]*449the indeterminate sentence of three years inflicted a total punishment of four years and was therefore illegal. Probation is not a sentence, but is a relief from the operation of a sentence (Code Crim. Pro., § 470-a; People ex rel. Lehman v. Hunt, 255 App. Div. 931). The sentence is not affected by the probationary period.

Writ dismissed.

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

Related

People Ex Rel. Kern v. Silberglitt
149 N.E.2d 76 (New York Court of Appeals, 1958)
People ex rel. Scott v. McDonnell
9 Misc. 2d 443 (New York Supreme Court, 1954)
People ex rel. Granza v. Johnston
9 Misc. 2d 446 (New York Supreme Court, 1946)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 Misc. 2d 448, 67 N.Y.S.2d 179, 1945 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-schurman-v-ashworth-nysupct-1945.