People ex rel. Sacconanno v. Shaw

• Decision Date: 24 July 1957
• Citation: 164 N.Y.S.2d 750,4 A.D.2d 817
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. Joseph SACCONANNO (Saccomano), Appellant, v. Francis D. SHAW, Director of Dannemora State Hospital, Dannemora, New York, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 750

164 N.Y.S.2d 750

4 A.D.2d 817

The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. Joseph SACCONANNO (Saccomano), Appellant, v. Francis D. SHAW, Director of Dannemora State Hospital Dannemora, New York, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

July 24, 1957.

Canio Louis Zarrilli, St. George, S. I., for relator-appellant.

Jacob K. Javits, Atty. Gen., for respondent.

Before FOSTER, P. J., and BERGAN, COON, HALPERN and GIBSON, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

This is an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term dismissing a writ of habeas corpus.

There is no factual dispute. Appellant was sentenced by the County Court of Bronx County, N. Y., on May 29, 1956, to Elmira Reformatory upon a guilty plea to the crime of burglary in the thrid degree. His maximum term would be five years. In the commitment the sentencing court added: 'The Court recommends that the defendant be given psychiatric treatment.' Subsequently, upon the certificate of a psychiatrist that in his opinion appellant was insane, the Superintendent of Elmira Reformatory caused the prisoner to be transferred to Dannemora State Hospital. Concededly appellant's term of confinement has not expired. He does not seek complete release, he seeks only that he be returned to Elmira Reformatory because he contends that he is not insane.

Traditionally the purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to determine the legal cause of detention, not the place of detention. It is without dispute that appellant was originally committed by virtue of a final judgment of a competent tribunal. He does not question the legality of the original commitment. Under section 1231, subd. 2, of the Civil Practice Act, he was not entitled to the writ in the first place. The record clearly shows that the trial justice who granted the writ, and later dismissed it, recognized this, and issued the writ out of graciousness because appellant's counsel wanted an opportunity to have the existing case law re-examined, with perhaps a different result.

The question of the place of confinement is not an open question in this court, once a valid commitment is made. People ex rel. Russo v. Shaw, 271 App.Div. 768, 64 N.Y.S.2d 517; People ex rel. Sullinger v. Shaw, 269 App.Div. 918, 57 N.Y.S.2d 505; People ex rel. Russo v. Shaw, 269 App.Div. 919, 57 N.Y.S.2d 483; People ex rel. Gardner v. Shaw, 269 App.Div. 919, 57 N.Y.S.2d 593. The Court of Appeals has said: 'The place where a prisoner sentenced...