People ex rel. Cromwell v. Warden

• Decision Date: 13 June 1973
• Citation: 345 N.Y.S.2d 381,74 Misc.2d 642
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. William CROMWELL, Relator, v. WARDEN, Defendant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. Richard HAYWOOD, Relator, v. WARDEN, Defendant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. Jackie JACKSON, Relator, v. WARDEN, Defendant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. Juan CORREA, Relator, v. WARDEN, Defendant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. Freddie VASQUEZ, Relator, v. WARDEN, Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 381

345 N.Y.S.2d 381

74 Misc.2d 642

The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. William CROMWELL, Relator, v. WARDEN, Defendant.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. Richard HAYWOOD, Relator, v. WARDEN, Defendant.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. Jackie JACKSON, Relator, v. WARDEN, Defendant.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. Juan CORREA, Relator, v. WARDEN, Defendant.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. Freddie VASQUEZ, Relator, v. WARDEN, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Bronx County, Part I.

June 13, 1973.

Joseph A. Kaplan, Legal Aid Society, Suffern, for the relators.

Norman Redlich, Corp. Counsel, New York City, for defendant, by Michael S. Cecere, Monsey, and Joseph F. Bruno, Assts. Corp. Counsel, New York City.

MAX BLOOM, Justice:

These five separate applications for writs of habeas corpus were heard together. The questions raised by each are common to all.

Cromwell was adjudged a youthful offender arising out of a felony charge. He was sentenced to the New York City Reformatory. After a stay approximating 11 months, he was paroled. Somewhat less than two years later he was rearrested, charged and convicted. By reason thereof, he received a sentence of one year in the New York City Correctional Institution. This sentence was completed in February, 1973. The arrest gave rise to the charge of violation of parole and, upon completion of the definite sentence, he was recommitted for parole violation. Inasmuch as he had attained the age of 21 years in the interim, he was notified that he had the choice of returning to the reformatory or serving the balance of his reformatory sentence at the correctional institution, which is the City's adult facility. He elected to remain in the correctional institution and signed an instrument waiving his right to return to the reformatory.

Jackson was convicted of attempted assault in the second degree, a class E felony. He was sentenced, as a young adult, to the New York City Reformatory. After serving 21 months, more or less, part of which was spent at Eastern Correctional Facility, he was paroled. Some seven months later he was charged with possession of a dangerous weapon and given a fixed sentence of six months in the correctional institution. This charge led to the further charge of violation of parole. Upon completion of the fixed sentence he was recommitted on the parole violation charge. Since Jackson had attained the age of 21 years at the time of his recommitment he, too, was given the option of serving the balance of his reformatory term in the adult facility or returning to the reformatory. Like Cromwell, he chose the correctional institution and signed the requisite waiver. He is now serving the balance of his reformatory sentence in the adult facility.

Vasquez followed a pattern similar to those already delineated. As an adolescent he was convicted of attempted robbery in the third degree, a class E felony. Sentence to the New York City, Reformatory followed. After serving some eight months of his sentence he was enrolled in the Grenada Program, a work release program. A short time thereafter he absconded. Subsequently, he was rearrested for possession of stolen property. Upon conviction he was sentenced to the correctional facility for one year. With the completion of his fixed sentence he was 'turned around' for violation of parole. Inasmuch as he, also, had attained the age of 21 years in the interim he, like the others, was allowed the option of completing his sentence in the adult facility or the reformatory. He chose the correctional institution and signed the necessary waiver.

Haywood and Correa followed slightly variant patterns. Although Haywood was originally charged with robbery in the third degree, a class D felony, he pleaded guilty to petit larceny, a class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced as a young adult to a reformatory term in the New York City Reformatory, part of which was spent at Rikers Island and part at Eastern Correctional Facility. While in the reformatory he was indicted for assault in the first degree, a charge upon which he is now awaiting trial. Upon attainment of the age of 21 years he was informed of his right to serve the balance of his reformatory term in the adult facility and elected so to do. Upon execution of the requisite waiver the transfer was effected.

Correa originally was sentenced to the correctional institution for a term of one year upon his conviction for attempted grand larceny in the third degree, a class A misdemeanor. While serving this sentence he was charged with sodomy. Upon conviction he was sentenced to the reformatory for a term to run concurrently with his fixed sentence. He, also, was given the choice of serving so much of his sentence as remained after he reached the age of 21 in the adult facility or in the reformatory. Initially, he selected the adult facility and signed the waiver. Thereafter, he changed his mind and notified the correctional authorities that he desired to be returned to the reformatory. His wishes were honored and he is now housed in the reformatory.

I

It may not be inappropriate to note that the Rikers Island complex is an institution consisting of many facilities. Thus, it contains the Adolescent Remand Shelter, which houses adolescents between the ages of 16 and 21 who are awaiting trial; the separate correctional facilities for men and women; and the New York City Reformatory. Prior to 1972 the reformatory was housed in the wing known as C--71. In that year a new wing, known as C--90, was opened and the reformatory was transferred to C--90. C--71 is now used to house segregated prisoners such as homosexuals.

All adolescents, whether sentenced to fixed or reformatory terms, are housed in the reformatory. Originally, they were confined in C--71 and, more recently, in C--90. Thus, at one time or another, all of the relators were consigned to these wings. Correa remains in C--90. The other relators are now in C--76, the wing housing the New York City Correctional Institution for Men.

Three basic questions have been posed by the relators. First, they contend that no part of the Rikers Island complex meets the requirements of a reformatory. Hence, they assert that their confinement, originally in C--71 and C--90 and now, with the exception of Correa, in C--76, is not in accordance with the sentences imposed upon them. Secondly, they claim that the reformatory sentence imposed entitled them to the benefit of certain rehabilitative programs. These programs, they state, are available only to those in C--90 and are not available to those confined in C--76. Finally, they point out that confinement under a reformatory sentence deprives them of the benefit of good behavior time which those serving indeterminate or definite sentences may earn under the provisions of Section 70.30, subd. 4 of the Penal Law.

II

Section 46, subd. 7--b of the Correction Law provides, among other things, that the state commission of correction in coordination with the commissioner of correctional services, shall '(i)ssue certificates of certification to reformatories established for the care, custody, treatment and training of young adults sentenced to a local reformatory sentence of imprisonment, under Section 75.20 of the Penal Law. No such certification shall be issued unless the commission is satisfied that the reformatory has established educational and other rehabilitative programs specifically designed for young adults and has adequate personnel and other resources for administering such programs.' ¹ Subdivision 7--b further provides that such certification may be withdrawn at any time. In such event 'any person confined in the institution under a local reformatory sentence shall forthwith be returned to the court that committed him for re-sentencing and such court may impose any other sentence applicable.'

The C--90 wing of the Rikers Island complex was opened in January, 1972. In anticipation of the opening, the New York City Department of Correction in December, 1971 applied to the State Commission of Correction to have the reformatory certification theretofore issued to C--71 transferred from that wing to C--90. The state commission was of the opinion that such certification was not subject to transfer. Accordingly, it initiated procedures looking to certification of the new wing. It designated two persons to make an inspection of C--90. Such an inspection was made and on January 25, 1972 a report was submitted to the commission of correction. This report indicated six specific areas in which improvements were recommended. Based upon this report, and after affording opportunity both to the City Department of Correction and to counsel to the relators to be heard, the state commission on January 25, 1972, granted conditional certification to C--90 for a six month period.

Since that time the conditional certification has been extended, initially for one month periods and more recently, for two month periods. The most recent extension occurred at the April meeting of the state commission when the certification was extended to June 25, 1973.

In the interim, informal inspections of C--90 have been made by Commissioners Young, Cass, Stumpf and Beha. A formal inspection was made during the week of April 23, 1973, and a written report was submitted to the commission. ² III

The relators attack the original conditional certification and the extensions thereof, contending that the system employed by the city reformatory in classifying inmates is defective, that the educational and other rehabilitative programs specifically designed for young adults are inadequate and that personnel to administer these programs is in short supply. Collaterally, they contend that the extended sentences imposed upon Haywood and Correa, who were convicted of misdemeanors, constitutes a deprivation of equal protection of the laws.

The constitutionality...