Glazier v. Reed

• Decision Date: 10 January 1933
• Citation: Glazier v. Reed, 116 Conn. 136, 163 A. 766 (Conn. 1933)
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: GLAZIER v. REED, Warden.

163 A. 766

116 Conn. 136

GLAZIER v. REED, Warden.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

January 10, 1933

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; John Rufus Booth Judge.

Application for a writ of habeas corpus by Reuben Glazier against Charles S. Reed, Warden of the State prison, alleging illegal imprisonment of the applicant. A demurrer to the respondent's return was sustained, and, the respondent failing to plead further, judgment was rendered discharging the applicant from confinement, and respondent appeals.

Error and case remanded.

Donald Gaffney, Asst. State's Atty., of New Britain, and Harold E. Mitchell, Asst. State's Atty., of Hartford (Hugh M. Alcorn, State's Atty., of Hartford, on the brief), for appellant.

Reinhart L. Gideon, Public Defender, and Charles E. Mahoney both of Hartford, for appellee.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY, JJ.

MALTBIE, C.J.

The plaintiff, an inmate of the state prison, brought this petition against the warden, alleging that he was illegally confined. The return states the following facts: The plaintiff was, on January 13, 1925, sentenced to the Connecticut Reformatory for the crime of statutory burglary. The sentence was an indefinite one, and under such a sentence the statute fixes five years as the maximum period of confinement upon conviction of the offense with which he was charged. General Statutes, § 1831. On July 16, 1926, after serving eighteen months, he was paroled. On or about October 30, 1926, he was arrested on a charge of assault with intent to rob; the directors of the reformatory informed the authorities that he was not to be returned to that institution, but should be first tried upon the charge for which he was arrested; and at the December criminal term of the superior court for Hartford county he was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to state prison for a term of not less than one nor more than three years. On January 12, 1927, the directors of the reformatory passed the following vote: " At a meeting of the Board of Directors held at the Reformatory on January 12th, it was voted that Reuben Glazier be transferred to the Connecticut State prison to serve the balance of his reformatory sentence, said sentence to take effect from and after the expiration of the one he is now serving." He served thirty months of his sentence to the state prison, received " good time of six months," and was discharged on June 10, 1929. He was, however, held thereafter in the state prison on the unexpired portion of his sentence to the reformatory. After twenty-two months, on April 23, 1931, he was paroled. On October 14, 1931, he was arrested on a charge of obtaining goods under false pretenses, and received a sentence of one year in jail, which was later commuted to five months. On the completion of this sentence, on June 13, 1932, he was returned to the state prison as a parole violator, and now is serving the unexpired portion of the sentence to the reformatory. To the return setting up these facts the plaintiff demurred on the ground that the plaintiff had served his full sentence to the reformatory, the trial court sustained the demurrer, judgment was entered for the plaintiff, and the respondent has appealed.

The reformatory law defines an inmate as any person sentenced to that institution until released from its control, including one on parole. General Statutes, § 1822. It also provides that " any inmate of said reformatory who shall persistently refuse to obey the regulations of said institution, and who shall appear to the directors to be incorrigible, may, upon the order of said directors, be transferred *** to the State prison, there to remain not exceeding in all the term for which such person might otherwise have been detained at the reformatory; provided *** any person transferred to the State prison shall be subject to the control of the authorities of said prison." General Statutes, § 1838. We entertain no doubt of the validity of the statute permitting the directors to transfer an inmate within the class described in the statute to the state prison. The possibility of such transfer is an incident annexed to the sentence to the reformatory and the determination of the existence of the circumstances conditioning the authority of the directors to make such a transfer may properly be left to them. Such a determination differs in no essential respect from similar determinations which they must make when deciding whether an inmate within the walls of the reformatory should be paroled, or whether one on parole has violated its terms so that he is to be returned to it, or those which the authorities in control of the state prison must make in deciding whether an inmate of that institution is entitled to a commutation or diminution of his sentence for good behavior or has forfeited time earned by him in that way, General Statutes, § 1978; Cum. Supp. 1931, § 329a. Such functions are so far of an administrative nature that they may properly be reposed in the officers of these institutions. Petition of Sheehan, 254 Mass. 342, 345, 150 N.E. 231; Pellissier v. Reed, 75 Wash. 201, 204, 134 P. 813; In re Cassidy, 13 R.I. 143. The fact that the petitioner was not confined within the walls of the reformatory at the time the directors voted to transfer him to the state prison would not in itself place him beyond their power to make the transfer. The regulations of the reformatory referred to in the statute include not only the regulations for the control of the inmates within the walls of the reformatory, but also those which govern their conduct while upon parole. Whether or not the directors abused their discretion in ordering the transfer of the petitioner is a question not presented upon this record and one which hardly could be presented without a finding of the facts.

Where an inmate of the reformatory on parole commits another crime and is...