Kane v. Durston

• Decision Date: 14 May 1894
• Docket Number: No. 1,185,1,185
• Citation: 153 U.S. 684,38 L.Ed. 867,14 S.Ct. 913
• Parties: McKANE v. DURSTON, Agent and Warden of Sing Sing Prison, in State of New York
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

153 U.S. 684

14 S.Ct. 913

38 L.Ed. 867

McKANE

v DURSTON, Agent and Warden of Sing Sing Prison, in State of New York.

No. 1,185.

May 14, 1894.

Robert H. Griffin, for appellant.

Benj.F. Tracy and Edward M. Shepard, for appellee.

Mr. Justice HARLANdelivered the opinion of the court.

Upon the trial in one of the courts of New York of an indictment charging John Y. McKane, the present appellant, with having willfully violated certain provisions of the law of that state relating to elections and to the registration of voters, the accused was found guilty, and was adjudged, February 19, 1894, to be imprisoned in the state prison at Sing Sing at hard labor for the term of six years.It was further ordered by the court that the convict be forthwith conveyed to that prison in execution of the sentence.That order was complied with, and he was delivered by the sheriff to the agent and warden of the prison, to be therin confined in conformity with the sentence against him.

From the judgment ordering his imprisonment only upon conditions similar to those prescribed allowed an appeal to the general term of the supreme court of New York.

On the 15th day of March, 1894, his counsel presented to the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York an application for a writ of habeas corpus, directed to the agent and warden of Sing Sing prison, and requiring him to produce the body of the petitioner before the court, and there abide such order as may be made in the premises.The petitioner represented that he was deprived of his liberty in violation of the constitution of the United States.

Under the statutes of the United States an appeal may be taken to this court from the final decision upon habeas corpus of the circuit court of the United States in the case of any person alleged to be restrained of his liberty in violation of the constitution or any law or treaty of the United States.In re Jugiro, 140 U. S. 291, 294, 295, 11 Sup. Ct. 770;Rev. St. §§ 751-753, 761-765;ActMarch 3, 1885, c. 353 (23 Stat. 437).Section 766 provides: 'Pending the proceedings or appeal in the cases mentioned in the three preceding sections, and until final judgment therein, and after final judgment of discharge, any proceeding against the person so imprisoned or confined, or restrained of his liberty in any state court, or by or under the authority of any state, for any matter so heard and determined, or in process of being heard and determined, under such writ of habeas corpus, shall be deemed null and void.'

The object of this statute, as was said in Re Jugiro, above cited, was, in cases where the applicant for the writ was held in custody under the authority of a state court, or by the authority of a state, to stay the hands of such court or state while the question whether his detention was in violation of the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States was being examined by the courts of the Union having jurisdiction in the premises.

When McKane applied for the writ of habeas corpus he was an inmate of Sing Sing prison, pursuant to the judgment of the court in which he was indicted and found guilty.His appeal to the general term of the supreme court, so far as the statutes of New York are concerned, did not prevent his being committed to that prison in execution of the sentence pronounced against him; for by section 527 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of New York it is provided that 'an appeal to the supreme court from a judgment of conviction, or other determination from which an appeal can be taken, stays the execution of the judgment or determination upon filing, with the notice of appeal, a certificate of the judge who presided at the trial, or of a justice of the supreme court, that in his opinion there is reasonable doubt whether the judgment should stand.'

As the accused does not claim to have filed with his notice of appeal the required certificate of reasonable doubt, his committal to prison pending his appeal to a higher court of the state was in conformity with the laws of New York.

But it is contended that the constitution of the United States secured to him the right to give bail pending his appeal to the general term of the supreme court of New York.

By the law of New York, 'after the conviction for a crime not punishable with death, a defendant who has appealed, and when there is a stay of proceedings, but not otherwise, may be admitted to bail: 1.As a matter of right, when the appeal is from a judgment imposing a fine only.2.As a matter of discretion in all other cases.'CodeCr....