People v. Schulman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Schulman

216 A.D. 814

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 15, 1926·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Order of the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Appellate Part, reversed upon the law and defendant remanded to the New York City Reformatory, as directed by the magistrate. The defendant was charged with being a vagrant and upon arraignment before a city magistrate pleaded guilty. He was thereupon sentenced to confinement in the New York City Reformatory “ according to law,” pursuant to the provisions of section 93 of the Inferior Criminal Courts Act.* The Court of Special Sessions entertained an [815] appeal from this judgment of conviction and reversed “ on the law and the facts ” and directed “ a new trial.” There was nothing before that court upon which such determination could legally be based. The defendant upon being arraigned made no demand for proof but simply interposed a plea of guilty. Such a plea is a confession of guilt and the equivalent of a valid conviction. We are of the opinion that there was no power to reverse the magistrate’s judgment. Kelly, P. J., Jaycox, Young, Kapper and Lazansky, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

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

Order of the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Appellate Part, reversed upon the law and defendant remanded to the New York City Reformatory, as directed by the magistrate. The defendant was charged with being a vagrant and upon arraignment before a city magistrate pleaded guilty. He was thereupon sentenced to confinement in the New York City Reformatory “ according to law,” pursuant to the provisions of section 93 of the Inferior Criminal Courts Act.* The Court of Special Sessions entertained an [815] appeal from this judgment of conviction and reversed “ on the law and the facts ” and directed “ a new trial.” There was nothing before that court upon which such determination could legally be based. The defendant upon being arraigned made no demand for proof but simply interposed a plea of guilty. Such a plea is a confession of guilt and the equivalent of a valid conviction. We are of the opinion that there was no power to reverse the magistrate’s judgment. Kelly, P. J., Jaycox, Young, Kapper and Lazansky, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

People v. Schulman, 216 A.D. 814 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

216 A.D. 814 (People v. Schulman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Footnotes

Related