People of New York ex rel. Irving Ellington v. Fay

S.D. New York

People of New York ex rel. Irving Ellington v. Fay

207 F. Supp. 595, 1962 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3704

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedAugust 7, 1962

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 207 F. Supp. 595 (People of New York ex rel. Irving Ellington v. Fay) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People of New York ex rel. Irving Ellington v. Fay, 207 F. Supp. 595, 1962 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3704 (S.D.N.Y. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

CASHIN, District Judge.

This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus claiming a violation of the relator’s rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Accordingly, the court has jurisdiction to issue the writ.

Two previous applications were made to this court and both were denied on the ground that the prisoner had not exhausted his state remedies. However, since then he has exhausted his state remedies.

He was found guilty of forgery in the second degree and grand larceny in the second degree, in the Queens County Court, and was sentenced as a second felony offender to serve a term of 6 to 20 years. From that conviction he appealed to the Appellate Division, Second Department, and that court affirmed Ms conviction. On June 5, 1961, permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied. Later he sought reargument of his application to appeal to the Court of Appeals, basing his argument for application on the case of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961).

On November 29, 1961 Judge Fuld denied this application stating as his reason that the Mapp case did not apply to his case because the petitioner had exhausted his appellate process before the Mapp decision. He said that the doctrine of People v. Defore, 242 N.Y. 13, 150 N.E. 585 (1926), represented the law of New York at that time. With his view I am wholly in accord. See also People v. Muller, 11 N.Y.2d 154, 227 N.Y.S.2d 421, 182 N.E.2d 99 (1962).

[596]*596After Judge Fuld’s ruling, petitioner made an application to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari and that was denied on February 19, 1962.

In view of the above, the writ is accordingly denied.

The petitioner asks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This was granted to the petitioner by order of Judge Dimock of this court, dated May 15, 1961.

This is an order. No settlement is necessary.

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

CASHIN, District Judge.

This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus claiming a violation of the relator’s rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Accordingly, the court has jurisdiction to issue the writ.

Two previous applications were made to this court and both were denied on the ground that the prisoner had not exhausted his state remedies. However, since then he has exhausted his state remedies.

He was found guilty of forgery in the second degree and grand larceny in the second degree, in the Queens County Court, and was sentenced as a second felony offender to serve a term of 6 to 20 years. From that conviction he appealed to the Appellate Division, Second Department, and that court affirmed Ms conviction. On June 5, 1961, permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied. Later he sought reargument of his application to appeal to the Court of Appeals, basing his argument for application on the case of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961).

On November 29, 1961 Judge Fuld denied this application stating as his reason that the Mapp case did not apply to his case because the petitioner had exhausted his appellate process before the Mapp decision. He said that the doctrine of People v. Defore, 242 N.Y. 13, 150 N.E. 585 (1926), represented the law of New York at that time. With his view I am wholly in accord. See also People v. Muller, 11 N.Y.2d 154, 227 N.Y.S.2d 421, 182 N.E.2d 99 (1962).

[596]*596After Judge Fuld’s ruling, petitioner made an application to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari and that was denied on February 19, 1962.

In view of the above, the writ is accordingly denied.

The petitioner asks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This was granted to the petitioner by order of Judge Dimock of this court, dated May 15, 1961.

This is an order. No settlement is necessary.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 F. Supp. 595, 1962 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-of-new-york-ex-rel-irving-ellington-v-fay-nysd-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack