Ex parte Domako, A--424
| Decision Date | 01 July 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. A--424,A--424 |
| Citation | 90 A.2d 30,20 N.J.Super. 314 |
| Parties | Ex parte DOMAKO. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Benjamin Domako, pro se, for appellant.
Theodore D. Parsons, Atty. Gen. of New Jersey (Eugene T. Urbaniak, Deputy Atty. Gen., appearing), for respondent State.
Before Judges McGEEHAN, JAYNE and GOLDMANN.
Benjamin Domako, an inmate of State Prison, has made a series of applications for a writ of Habeas corpus. In June 1951 the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's denial of an application made by him for the writ, and the Supreme Court affirmed. In the Matter of the Application of Domako, 9 N.J. 443, 88 A.2d 606 (1952). He made another application for the writ; it was denied in the Mercer County Court on July 30, 1951, and this denial was affirmed by the Appellate Division in October 1951. In January 1952 he applied again for the writ; it was denied in the Superior Court, Law Division, and he again appeals.
In 1947, Domako pleaded guilty to four indictments and was sentenced to State Prison. In the application for the writ, which is now under consideration, Domako alleged that his confinement is illegal for the following reasons: (1) 'The prisoner's detention of seven days, after arrest, and before being given a hearing in the Magistrate's Court, because of that which transpired, violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, and the New Jersey Constitution and its laws'; (2) 'Counsel's aid to defendant was insufficient to satisfy the requirement of the Due Process Clause, the proceedings being basically unfair.'
In his argument under his first ground, Domako alleges that during the seven-day detention the police interrogated him frequently and his request for counsel was denied. He was subjected to involuntary questioning, accompanied by physical force, which induced the confessions he made. In passing, we observe that he pleaded guilty and no confession of his was used against him. The very same ground was advanced by Domako in his application which was denied by the Mercer County Court on July 30, 1951. The trial court disposed of it adversely to the applicant, and on appeal the Appellate Division affirmed. Our prior disposition controls.
As to his second ground, he admits that he directed his sister to engage an attorney; that his sister did engage an attorney and pay him, and that the attorney did represent him. The papers submitted by him on this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cicenia v. La Gay
...has a rule that a defendant who pleads guilty waives the right to attack a confession on which such plea is based. See In re Domako, 20 N.J.Super. 314, 90 A.2d 30, affirmed 11 N.J. 591, 95 A.2d 505. Following that rule, the Essex County Court held that petitioner could not attack his convic......
-
Application of Cicenia
...guilty is not subject to attack on the ground that there lurks in the background an illegally procured confession. In re Domako, App.Div.1952, 20 N.J. Super. 314, 90 A.2d 30. However, in affirming the judgment of the Essex County Court the Appellate Division, in its unreported opinion, held......
-
State v. Jacobson
...1316 (1950); State v. Pierce, supra; State v. Schmieder, 5 N.J. 40, 74 A.2d 290 (1950); State v. Miller, supra; In re Domako, 20 N.J.Super. 314, 90 A.2d 30 (App.Div.1952). At the trial, the question of the voluntariness of the confession was raised and on the basis of the testimony adduced ......
-
Domako, In re, A
...1953. Decided March 23, 1953. On appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 20 N.J.Super. 314, 90 A.2d 30. Benjamin Domako, in pro. Eugene T. Urbaniak, Trenton, for respondent (Theodore D. Parsons, Atty. Gen). PER CURIAM. The judgment is a......