People ex rel. Newton v. Twombly
| Decision Date | 20 January 1920 |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. NEWTON v. TWOMBLY, Warden of Dannemora Prison. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Habeas corpus by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of Harvey A. Newton, against John B. Twombly, as Warden of Dannemora Prison. From an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the Third Department (190 App. Div. 882,178 N. Y. Supp. 736), which affirmed by a divided court an order of the Special Term (107 Misc. Rep. 48,175 N. Y. Supp. 524) sustaining a writ of habeas corpus and discharging the relator, the defendant appeals.
Order reversed, writ dismissed, and relator remanded to the custody of the warden of the prison.
See, also, 107 Misc. Rep. 677,177 N. Y. Supp. 482.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third department.
Charles D. Newton, Atty. Gen. (Henry C. Henderson, of Albany, of counsel), for appellant.
In September, 1912, the relator, then known as Frank Irwin, was convicted of burglary and confined in Sing Sing Prison under an indeterminate sentence, of which the maximum was nve years. From Sing Sing he was transferred to Great Meadow Prison, and then, in March, 1914, after serving about a year and a half of his term was released upon parole. He was permitted to go outside of the ‘prison walls and inclosure’ (Prison Law, § 214; Consol. Laws, c. 43), but he remained while on parole ‘in the legal custody and under the control’ of the warden of the prison (section 214). It was a condition of the parol that, if there was reasonable cause to believe that he had lapsed or was about to lapse into criminal ways or company, he might be retaken and confined. Prison Law, § 215. Hardly was the relator at large before he violated his parol, and committed burglary again. On May 29, 1914, under the name of Harvey A. Newton, he was convicted of the second offense, and sentenced to confinement in Sing Sing for the term of four years. He had been there about ten days when the discovery was made that Newton was Irwin. Thereupon a warrant was issued that he be arrested for breach of his parole, and on June 19, 1914, the board declared him delinquent. After this declaration the law required that--
He be ‘imprisoned in said prison for a period equal to the unexpired maximum term of sentence of such prisoner, at the time such delinquency is declared, unless sooner released on parole or absolutely discharged by the board of parole of state prisons.’ Prison Law (Cons. Laws, c. 43) § 217.
In obedience to this requirement, he was returned from Sing Sing to Great Meadow Prison, where he appeared before the board, and from Great Meadow he was transferred, on August 1, 1914, to Dannemora (Prison Law, § 149), where he remained till released, in habeas corpus proceedings, in March, 1919.
The ground of his release was that the sentences under the two convictions were to be served concurrently, and not consecutively, and that both had therefore expired. The statute, as we read it, declares a different rule. Section 2190 of the Penal Law (Consol. Laws, c. 40) provides:
‘Where a person, under sentence for a felony, afterward commits any other felony, and is thereof convicted and sentenced to another term of imprisonment, the latter term shall not begin until the expiration of all the terms of imprisonment, to which he is already sentenced.’
Under this statute, the declaration of delinquency, when followed by the return of the prisoner, postponed the execution of the second sentence until the execution of the first had been completed. It is not the mandate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hawkins v. Coughlin
...A.D.2d 508, 298 N.Y.S.2d 526, affd. 25 N.Y.2d 976; People ex rel. Natoli v. Lewis, 287 N.Y. 478, 41 N.E.2d 62; People ex rel. Newton v. Twombly, 228 N.Y. 33, 34, 126 N.E. 255). Moreover, petitioner maintains, if we construe the term custody to mean only "actual" custody, those who have alre......
-
People v. Langella
...215 N.Y.S.2d 44, 174 N.E.2d 725; People ex rel. Rainone v. Murphy, 1 N.Y.2d 367, 153 N.Y.S.2d 21, 135 N.E.2d 567; People ex rel. Newton v. Twombly, 228 N.Y. 33, 126 N.E. 255; Jenkins v. Madigan, 7 Cir., 211 F.2d 904; United States ex rel. Rowe v. Nicholson, 4 Cir., 78 F.2d ...
-
Elder v. Dowd
...1946, 224 Ind. 515, 517, 69 N.E.2d 172; Canfield v. Commissioners, 1937, 280 Mich. 305, 309, 273 N.W. 578; People ex rel. Newton v. Twombly, 1920, 228 N.Y. 33, 35, 126 N.E. 255. 'So likewise the judgment in the present instance shall be considered the same as if the judgment has specificall......
-
State v. Fazzano
...v. Commissioner of Pardons and Paroles, 280 Mich. 305, 273 N.W. 578; Ex parte Green, 322 Mo. 857, 17 S.W.2d 939; People ex rel. Newton v. Twombly, 228 N.Y. 33, 126 N.E. 255, reversing 190 App.Div. 882, 178 N.Y.S. In Twombly, supra, the New York Court of Appeals construed a statute which pro......