People ex rel. Morriale v. Branham

• Decision Date: 13 January 1944
• Citation: 291 N.Y. 312,52 N.E.2d 881
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. MORRIALE v. BRANHAM.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

291 N.Y. 312

52 N.E.2d 881

PEOPLE ex rel. MORRIALE

v.BRANHAM.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Decided Dec. 2, 1943.

Reargument Granted Jan. 13, 1944.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

Habeas corpus proceeding by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of Charles Morriale, against Dr. Vernon C. Branham, Superintendent of Woodbourne Institution for Defective Delinquents. From an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, 266 App.Div. 476,42 N.Y.S.2d 716, which reversed on the law, an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, Sullivan county, Bergen, J., 178 Misc. 728, 36 N.Y.S.2d 217, sustaining the writ and discharging the relator from custody of respondent, without prejudice to a new proceeding providing notice and opportunity to be heard upon the question of the purported mental defectiveness of relator, and which dismissed the writ and remanded the relator to the custody of the respondent, the relator appeals.

Order of the Appellate Division reversed and that of the Special Term affirmed.

See, also, 289 N.Y. 813, 47 N.E.2d 54. Caesar B. F. Barra and Ralph J. Barra, both of New York City, for appellant.

Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Atty. Gen. (Orrin G. Judd and A. W. Feinberg, both of Albany, of counsel), for respondent.

LEHMAN, Chief Judge.

The relator, Charles Morriale, pleaded guilty to a charge of attempted robbery, third degree, and on April 5, 1935, was sentenced to Sing Sing prison for a term of six years. The relator admitted that he had previously been convicted of a felony. The court in sentencing the relator to Sing Sing prison recommended that he ‘receive hospital treatment for his mental condition’, but made no finding that he was a ‘mental defective.’

The relator on April 24, 1935, was transferred from Sing Sing prison to the Institution for Male Defective Delinquents at Napanoch, New York, as a mental defective (pursuant to s 439 of the Correction Law, Consol.Laws, c. 43) and thereafter, on March 15, 1938, was transferred from Napanoch to the Woodbourne Institution for Defective Delinquents. His term of imprisonment expired on January 23, 1941. On January 10, 1941, a few days before the expiration of the relator's term of imprisonment, the respondent as Superintendent of Woodbourne Institution for Defective Delinquents presented to the County Judge of Sullivan County a petition for an order authorizing the relator's retention after the expiration of the relator's sentence, in accordance with the provisions of section 440 of the Correction Law. On January 18, 1941, the County Judge made an order adjudging the relator to be a mental defective and directing that he be committed to the Woodbourne Institution for Defective Delinquents, ‘there to be dealt with according to law.’

No notice of the presentation of the petition was given to the relator, and he had no opportunity to challenge at that time the ex parte assertion and proof that he is a mental defective. In April, 1942, more than a year after the expiration of his term of imprisonment under the sentence imposed upon him as punishment for the criminal offense of which he was convicted, the validity of the order of retention, or recommitment, was challenged on the ground that no notice of the presentation of the petition was given to the relator, and that an order for his retention after the expiration of his sentence deprives him of his liberty without due process of law. The relator also claims that the order is invalid because it was made before the expiration of the relator's term of imprisonment. The relator's challenge was sustained at Special Term. The order sustaining the writ was reversed and the writ was dismissed by the Appellate Division, two justices dissenting.

Section 440 of the Correction Law provides that when the term of imprisonment of a prisoner confined in a state institution for defective delinquents, ‘has expired, and, in the opinion of the superintendent thereof, such prisoner is a mental defective the superintendent shall apply to a judge of a court of record to cause an examination to be made of such person, by two qualified examiners * * *.’ If the examiners designated by the court make a certificate that after personal examination they are satisfied that the prisoner is a mental defective, the superintendent ‘shall apply to a judge of a court of record for an order authorizing him to retain such prisoner at the institution, accompanying such application with such certificate of mental defect. Such judge, if satisfied that such prisoner is a mental defective, shall issue an order of retention, and such superintendent shall thereupon retain the prisoner at the institution until discharged as provided by law.’

The statute does not expressly require that notice of an application for the retention of a prisoner after the expiration of his term shall be given to the prisoner. The statute does require that the judge shall issue an order of retention only ‘if satisfied’ that such prisoner is a mental defective. There must be judicial consideration and decision. An ex parte judicial decision that a prisoner otherwise entitled to his liberty shall continue to be retained in custody until at some future time he may be discharged by his custodian or may secure his release by habeas corpus proceedings, would be contrary to the traditions of the common law and perhaps would...