People ex rel. Stark v. Deegan
| Decision Date | 12 January 1968 |
| Citation | 289 N.Y.S.2d 285,56 Misc.2d 567 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. Robert A. STARK, Petitioner, v. Hon. John T. DEEGAN, Warden of Sing Sing Prison, Ossining, New York, Respondent. |
Robert A. Stark, in pro. per.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., for respondent, Thomas F. O'Hare, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., New York City, of counsel.
Petitioner appears before this court pursuant to a Writ of Habeas Corpus issued on the 14th day of December, 1967, challenging his detention on the ground that it is unlawful.
The petitioner received a sentence to state prison of a minimum 1-year-3-months to a maximum of 2-years. The parole board having denied petitioner consideration, we are concerned merely with the correct computation of maximum limits of petitioner's sentence.
It appears that prior to sentence, but on the same charge, petitioner was incarcerated in the Nassau County Jail for 283 days and it is his contention that the 'good behavior' allowance provided for in Section 230(4) and Section 230--a of the Correction Law contemplated the inclusion of the 'jail time' in determining the amount of reduction of sentence.
Respondent alludes to the language of the first sentence of Section 230(4) which refers to prisoners confined in an institution 'under the jurisdiction of the state department of correction'. This might possibly be construed to mean that prisoners Confined in such an institution may be credited Only with 'good behavior' time against time Served in such an institution but there is no specific language in the section which clearly says so and, since a person's liberty is involved, any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the petitioner.
It is curious that subdivision 3 of said section (230 Correction Law) specifically mentions 'jail time' in establishing a formula for sentence reduction, while subdivision 4 is silent as to that phrase.
Adoption of the respondent's interpretation would have the effect of prejudicing a defendant who was unable to raise funds in order to be released on bail, and would deprive him of 'equal protection of the laws' in violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. For example, a defendant who was at liberty on bail prior to judgment, and received a similar sentence would be subject to a maximum of 16-months, as opposed to 18-months for petitioner who could not afford bail and who languished in jail awaiting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Turman
...This is a wealth discrimination which bears no rational connection to any legitimate governmental interest. E.g., People v. Deegan, 56 Misc.2d 567, 289 N.Y.S.2d 285 (1968). III. The majority's unwillingness to accept the defendant's equal protection argument stems, in part, from its relucta......
-
Phipps v. McGinnis
...suggests a split in authority among the state courts as to the proper interpretation of the statute itself. In People ex rel. Stark v. Deegan, 56 Misc.2d 567, 289 N.Y.S.2d 285 (Sup.Ct., Westchester County, 1968), the court was confronted with the identical issue here involved as it applied ......
-
People ex rel. Cromwell v. Warden
...he would be entitled. (Correction Law, § 803, subd. 3; Sostre v. McGinnis, 2 Cir., 442 F.2d 178, 194--199; People ex rel. Stark v. Deegan, 56 Misc.2d 567, 289 N.Y.S.2d 285; Kritsky v. McGinnis, 313 F.Supp. 1247 (NDNY); cf. Rodriguez v. McGinnis, 451 F.2d 730 (CA ...
-
Rodriguez v. McGinnis
...by rulings in the New York Courts that such discretionary reductions cannot be arbitrarily withheld. (People ex rel. Stark v. Deegan (1968), 56 Misc.2d 567, 289 N.Y.S.2d 285; People ex rel. Roy v. Murphy, 36 Misc.2d 501, 233 N.Y.S.2d 282.) New York Courts have entertained these challenges, ......