Caruso, Application of, No. A--147

CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtBURLING
Citation10 N.J. 184,89 A.2d 661
Docket NumberNo. A--147
Decision Date26 June 1952
PartiesApplication of CARUSO.

Page 184

10 N.J. 184
89 A.2d 661
Application of CARUSO.
No. A--147.
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Argued June 9, 1952.
Decided June 26, 1952.

Page 187

[89 A.2d 662] Robert S. Hartgrove, Jersey City, argued the cause for appellant.

Paul T. Huckin, Deputy Atty. Gen. of New Jersey, argued the cause for respondent, the State of New Jersey (Harry L. Towe, Deputy Atty. Gen. of New Jersey, attorney).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

BURLING, J.

This is an appeal brought by one Paulo (Paul) Caruso from judgment of the Superior Court, Appellate Division, which affirmed an order of the Mercer County Court denying Caruso's application for writ of Habeas corpus.

Caruso was indicted by the Bergen County grand jury at the December 1941 term on two counts, one charging him with the crime of assault with intent to rob on April 5, 1941, and the second charging that he had been convicted of high misdemeanors on three separate prior occasions. On February 2, 1942, Caruso was tried and convicted by a jury in the Bergen County Court of Quarter Sessions under the aforesaid indictment. His counsel, assigned by the court, stipulated in open court that the prior convictions alleged in the indictment were true. As a result of the conviction, Caruso was sentenced to State Prison for life. He filed no appeal, but on November 30, 1943 petitioned the former Supreme Court for a writ of Habeas corpus. His petition was granted and the writ allowed. The court by a single justice subsequently discharged the writ. In re Caruso, 131 N.J.L. 505, 37 A.2d 277 (Sup.Ct.1944). Caruso then petitioned the former Supreme Court for a writ of Certiorari to review the action of the single justice in discharging the writ of Habeas corpus. The writ was initially allowed, but after consideration by the court wad dismissed. In re Caruso, 135 N.J.L. 522, 53 A.2d 308 (Sup.Ct.1947). Subsequently there appears to have been no endeavor by Caruso to pursue his alleged rights until January 25, 1951 when he again applied for a writ of Habeas corpus, this time

Page 188

to the Mercer County Court. The application was denied and Caruso appealed to the Superior Court, Appellate Division. The order of the Mercer County Court was affirmed, and it is from the judgment of affirmance that Caruso appeals on constitutional grounds, to this court.

The questions involved on this appeal include, Inter alia, (a) whether L.1940, c. 219, p. 889, sec. 3, amendatory of R.S. 2:103--10, N.J.S.A., (substantially reenacted in N.J.S. 2A:85--12, N.J.S.A.) is constitutional, and (b) whether the writ of Habeas corpus is available to Caruso to review the validity of his conviction and sentence.

The constitutionality of the pertinent portion of the Habitual Criminal Act, namely, R.S. 2:103--10 as amended by L.1940, c. 219, sec. 3, N.J.S.A., was upheld by the former Supreme Court on Caruso's earlier application for Habeas corpus. In re Caruso, supra (131 N.J.L., at pages 506, 508, 37 A.2d 277; affirmed 135 N.J.L., at [89 A.2d 663] page 523, 53 A.2d 308). And has been sustained in other decisions of courts in this State. State v. Cubbler, 4 N.J.Super. 297, 67 A.2d 206 (App.Div.1949); State v. Janiec, 9 N.J.Super. 29, 74 A.2d 605 (App.Div.1950) affirmed on other grounds 6 N.J. 608, 80 A.2d 94 (1951), certiorari denied 341 U.S. 955, 71 S.Ct. 1007, 95 L.Ed. 1376 (1951); In re Zee, 13 N.J.Super. 312, 80 A.2d 480 (Cty.Ct.1951), affirmed per curiam State v. Zee, 16 N.J.Super. 171, 84 A.2d 29 (App.Div.1951). The act was inferentially upheld in State v. Burns, 136 N.J.L. 601, 603, 57 A.2d 1 (E. & A.1948). And this type of statute was upheld by the United States Supreme Court at an early date. See Graham v. West Virginia, 224 U.S. 616, 32 S.Ct. 583, 56 L.Ed. 917 (1912).

The precise constitutional argument raised on this appeal however, does not appear to have been dispositively determined by a court of last resort of this State. Caruso asserts that R.S. 2:103--10 as amended, N.J.S.A., supra, is arbitrary and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 practice notes
  • State v. Oliver
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • November 8, 1996
    ...205, 87 L.Ed. 566 (1942); Alaway v. U.S., 280 F.Supp. 326 (C.D.CA.1968); U.S. v. Platt, 31 F.Supp. 788, 793 (D.Ct.Tex.1940); In re Caruso, 10 N.J. 184, 89 A.2d 661 (1952); State v. Phillips, 154 N.J.Super. 112, 380 A.2d 1197 (Law Div.1977), aff'd, 169 N.J.Super. 452, 404 A.2d 1270 (App.Div.......
  • State v. Erazo
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • August 8, 1991
    ...179, 40 L.Ed. 301 (1895) (rejecting, inter alia, a double-jeopardy challenge to a Missouri sentence-enhancement provision); In re Caruso, 10 N.J. 184, 89 A.2d 661 (1952) (rejecting, inter alia, an ex post facto law challenge to a [594 A.2d 244] New Jersey sentence-enhancement provision). Al......
  • Worbetz v. Goodman, No. A--632
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • November 13, 1957
    ...Criminal Act (R.S. 2:103--10, amended L.1940, c. 219, § 3, substantially reenacted in N.J.S. 2A:85--12, N.J.S.A.; Vide, In re Caruso, 10 N.J. 184, 89 A.2d 661 (1952)), in the setting of entry of pleas exposing the accused to life imprisonment, invokes a broader inquiry, albeit one not uninf......
  • State v. Ulesky, No. A
    • United States
    • New Jersey County Court
    • March 28, 1968
    ...burden is placed upon a criminal after the original offense. These have been held not to be Ex post facto laws, see Application of Caruso, 10 N.J. 184, 89 A.2d 661 (1952), and do not create a substantive crime. See State v. Washington, 47 N.J. 244, 220 A.2d 185 (1966); State v. Tyler, 88 N.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
22 cases
  • State v. Oliver
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • November 8, 1996
    ...205, 87 L.Ed. 566 (1942); Alaway v. U.S., 280 F.Supp. 326 (C.D.CA.1968); U.S. v. Platt, 31 F.Supp. 788, 793 (D.Ct.Tex.1940); In re Caruso, 10 N.J. 184, 89 A.2d 661 (1952); State v. Phillips, 154 N.J.Super. 112, 380 A.2d 1197 (Law Div.1977), aff'd, 169 N.J.Super. 452, 404 A.2d 1270 (App.Div.......
  • State v. Erazo
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • August 8, 1991
    ...179, 40 L.Ed. 301 (1895) (rejecting, inter alia, a double-jeopardy challenge to a Missouri sentence-enhancement provision); In re Caruso, 10 N.J. 184, 89 A.2d 661 (1952) (rejecting, inter alia, an ex post facto law challenge to a [594 A.2d 244] New Jersey sentence-enhancement provision). Al......
  • Worbetz v. Goodman, No. A--632
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • November 13, 1957
    ...Criminal Act (R.S. 2:103--10, amended L.1940, c. 219, § 3, substantially reenacted in N.J.S. 2A:85--12, N.J.S.A.; Vide, In re Caruso, 10 N.J. 184, 89 A.2d 661 (1952)), in the setting of entry of pleas exposing the accused to life imprisonment, invokes a broader inquiry, albeit one not uninf......
  • State v. Ulesky, No. A
    • United States
    • New Jersey County Court
    • March 28, 1968
    ...burden is placed upon a criminal after the original offense. These have been held not to be Ex post facto laws, see Application of Caruso, 10 N.J. 184, 89 A.2d 661 (1952), and do not create a substantive crime. See State v. Washington, 47 N.J. 244, 220 A.2d 185 (1966); State v. Tyler, 88 N.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT