People v. Adams

19 N.Y. Crim. 425, 176 N.Y. 351
New York Court of Appeals·Decided November 15, 1903·Published·Cited by 144 cases

Opinion

Bartlett, J.:

The appellant makes the further point, that the statute under which the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a term, the minimum of which, shall be not less than one year, and the maximum shall be not more than one year and nine months, is unconstitutional.

Section 687a of the Penal Code was enacted in 1901, presumably in the interest of defendants who had never before' been convicted of a felony. The fixing of a maximum and minimum sentence is to be considered in connection with the law relating to prisons (§§ 74 to 83, Birdseye’s R. S. [3d ed.], vol. 2, pp. 2737, 2738,. 2739.) In brief it is provided (§ 77), that the superintendent of State prisons shall cause to be kept a record of each prisoner therein confined upon an indeterminate sentence; and if it shall appear (§ 78) to the board of commissioners of paroled prisoners that there is a reasonable probability that such prisoner will live and remain at liberty [426] without violating the law, the hoard is permitted to release him on parole after service of the minimum sentence; but until the expiration of the maximum term he is not absolutely discharged, and is liable to rearrest if he violates his parole. This is a merciful exercise of legislative power which has been repeatedly approved by the Supreme Court. .This form of legislation has been sustained by the courts of many other states. The provisions to which attention has already been called, relating to the release of paroled prisoners, remove some of the objections urged by the appellant. The legislation complained of is constitutional and in the interest of the defendant who stands before the court charged with a first offense.

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

People v. Adams, 19 N.Y. Crim. 425, 176 N.Y. 351 (N.Y. 1903).

19 N.Y. Crim. 425 (People v. Adams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Tutalo
205 A.2d 137 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1964)
State v. Davis
1 Conn. Cir. Ct. 361 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1962)
Elkins v. United States
364 U.S. 206 (Supreme Court, 1960)
Commonwealth v. Bruno
106 A.2d 905 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1954)
On Lee v. United States
343 U.S. 747 (Supreme Court, 1952)
Commonwealth v. Agoston
72 A.2d 575 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1950)
Wolf v. Colorado
338 U.S. 25 (Supreme Court, 1949)
People v. Wolosky
72 N.E.2d 172 (New York Court of Appeals, 1947)
State v. Lorenzo
48 A.2d 407 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1946)
Malinski v. New York
324 U.S. 401 (Supreme Court, 1945)
State v. Kelly
15 N.W.2d 554 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1944)
People v. Richter's Jewelers, Inc.
51 N.E.2d 690 (New York Court of Appeals, 1943)
Church v. State
9 So. 2d 164 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1942)
People v. Haddock
57 P.R. 906 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1941)
Pueblo v. Haddock
57 P.R. Dec. 924 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1941)
American Telephone & Telegraph Company's Appeal
191 A. 210 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1937)
People v. Washington
191 N.E. 7 (New York Court of Appeals, 1934)
People v. Lebrón Bernes
46 P.R. 569 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1934)
Pueblo v. Lebrón Bernes
46 P.R. Dec. 588 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1934)
People v. Mummiani
180 N.E. 94 (New York Court of Appeals, 1932)