People ex rel. Schuyler v. Brophy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Schuyler v. Brophy

256 A.D. 1045, 10 N.Y.S.2d 754, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5999

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 256 A.D. 1045 (People ex rel. Schuyler v. Brophy) 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. Schuyler v. Brophy, 256 A.D. 1045, 10 N.Y.S.2d 754, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5999 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The claim of the relator that the Governor terminated his sentence on June 28, 1935, and that he was never released on parole is contrary to the facts. The Governor merely reduced relator’s minimum term. The relator was paroled from Great Meadow Prison on September 30, 1935. The fact that he was immediately committed to Onondaga County Penitentiary to serve a year’s sentence imposed for an attempted escape did not serve to revoke his parole. He was permitted his liberty on parole upon his release from that institution in May, 1936. Relator violated his parole and on October 1, 1937, was returned to prison and was held, after a hearing, to appear before the Parole Board in September, 1942. The procedure of the Parole Board was regular. (Code Grim. Proe. § 696; Correction Law, §§ 215, 216, 218.) The court has no power in a habeas corpus proceeding to review the determination of the Parole Board. (People ex rel. Kurzynski v. Hunt, 250 App. Div. 378, 379.) The law in effect at the time of a parole violator’s return to prison is controlling. (Matter of Magistro v. Wilson, 253 App. Div. 48, 50.) All concur. (The order dismisses a writ of habeas corpus and remands relator into custody.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Dowling, JJ.

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

Order affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The claim of the relator that the Governor terminated his sentence on June 28, 1935, and that he was never released on parole is contrary to the facts. The Governor merely reduced relator’s minimum term. The relator was paroled from Great Meadow Prison on September 30, 1935. The fact that he was immediately committed to Onondaga County Penitentiary to serve a year’s sentence imposed for an attempted escape did not serve to revoke his parole. He was permitted his liberty on parole upon his release from that institution in May, 1936. Relator violated his parole and on October 1, 1937, was returned to prison and was held, after a hearing, to appear before the Parole Board in September, 1942. The procedure of the Parole Board was regular. (Code Grim. Proe. § 696; Correction Law, §§ 215, 216, 218.) The court has no power in a habeas corpus proceeding to review the determination of the Parole Board. (People ex rel. Kurzynski v. Hunt, 250 App. Div. 378, 379.) The law in effect at the time of a parole violator’s return to prison is controlling. (Matter of Magistro v. Wilson, 253 App. Div. 48, 50.) All concur. (The order dismisses a writ of habeas corpus and remands relator into custody.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Dowling, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D. 1045, 10 N.Y.S.2d 754, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5999, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-schuyler-v-brophy-nyappdiv-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack