State v. Smith

Supreme Court of New Jersey

State v. Smith

58 A.2d 777, 137 N.J.L. 144, 1948 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 139

DecidedMay 10, 1948

StatusPublished

This text of 58 A.2d 777 (State v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Smith, 58 A.2d 777, 137 N.J.L. 144, 1948 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 139 (N.J. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Donges, J.

Prosecutor is confined in Eahway Eeformatory upon conviction and sentence on an indictment charging attempted larceny” of a motor vehicle on January 13th, 1947. The indictment was presented by the grand jury on June 4th, 1947. On September 25th, 1947, he was tried and found guiltj', and on October 16th, 1947, was sentenced to the Eahway Eeformatory. Application was made on November 6th, 1947, to the Union County Court of Common Pleas for *145 a writ of habeas corpus to review the conviction, which application was denied. Prosecutor seeks certiorari to review the action of the Judge of the Common Pleas Court in denying the writ of habeas corpus. It is urged that the court was without jurisdiction to try the case and that the judgment of guilty is null and void.

The record presented is very meager. The record presented to the Common Pleas Court is not submitted; the only matter submitted for consideration is an affidavit of prosecutor, lie asserts that he did not have a fair trial because time was not afforded for an opportunity to discuss the matter with his counsel and prepare for trial. It appears that over eight months elapsed betweerr his arrest and trial, during which time he was released on bail. He entered a plea of not guilty on June 12th, when he was informed the indictment would be moved for trial during the week of September 15th, 1941. He was then represented by counsel who represented him at the trial.

It appears clear from the record before us that the Court of Quarter Sessions of Union County had jurisdiction to render the judgment of conviction. The only challenge is as to the alleged error in the conduct of the trial. The record does not sustain such a claim, but if it did, the remedy is by appeal or writ of error. In re Hall, 94 N. J. Eq. 108.

In re Scridlow, 124 N. J. L. 342, holds, “If there was any error in the judgment under attack it did not stem from lack of jurisdiction. If the court erred in imposing the sentence, or if there was abuse of discretion, that is a matter that may not be reviewed by a writ of habeas corpus. An appeal should have been taken within the statutory period. State v. Osborne, 79 N. J. Eq. 430. A review by habeas corpus may, of course, be had where there was a failure of jurisdiction. See In re Marlow, 75 N. J. L. 400.”

We conclude, therefore, that the application for this writ must be, and it is denied.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Donges, J.

Prosecutor is confined in Eahway Eeformatory upon conviction and sentence on an indictment charging attempted larceny” of a motor vehicle on January 13th, 1947. The indictment was presented by the grand jury on June 4th, 1947. On September 25th, 1947, he was tried and found guiltj', and on October 16th, 1947, was sentenced to the Eahway Eeformatory. Application was made on November 6th, 1947, to the Union County Court of Common Pleas for *145 a writ of habeas corpus to review the conviction, which application was denied. Prosecutor seeks certiorari to review the action of the Judge of the Common Pleas Court in denying the writ of habeas corpus. It is urged that the court was without jurisdiction to try the case and that the judgment of guilty is null and void.

The record presented is very meager. The record presented to the Common Pleas Court is not submitted; the only matter submitted for consideration is an affidavit of prosecutor, lie asserts that he did not have a fair trial because time was not afforded for an opportunity to discuss the matter with his counsel and prepare for trial. It appears that over eight months elapsed betweerr his arrest and trial, during which time he was released on bail. He entered a plea of not guilty on June 12th, when he was informed the indictment would be moved for trial during the week of September 15th, 1941. He was then represented by counsel who represented him at the trial.

It appears clear from the record before us that the Court of Quarter Sessions of Union County had jurisdiction to render the judgment of conviction. The only challenge is as to the alleged error in the conduct of the trial. The record does not sustain such a claim, but if it did, the remedy is by appeal or writ of error. In re Hall, 94 N. J. Eq. 108.

In re Scridlow, 124 N. J. L. 342, holds, “If there was any error in the judgment under attack it did not stem from lack of jurisdiction. If the court erred in imposing the sentence, or if there was abuse of discretion, that is a matter that may not be reviewed by a writ of habeas corpus. An appeal should have been taken within the statutory period. State v. Osborne, 79 N. J. Eq. 430. A review by habeas corpus may, of course, be had where there was a failure of jurisdiction. See In re Marlow, 75 N. J. L. 400.”

We conclude, therefore, that the application for this writ must be, and it is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.2d 777, 137 N.J.L. 144, 1948 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-smith-nj-1948.