People ex rel. Williams v. Murphy
| Decision Date | 08 July 1959 |
| Citation | 160 N.E.2d 480,189 N.Y.S.2d 182,6 N.Y.2d 234 |
| Parties | , 160 N.E.2d 480 The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. Amos WILLIAMS, Respondent, v. Robert E. MURPHY, as Warden of Auburn State Prison, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. (Joseph J. Rose and Paxton Blair, Albany, of counsel), for appellants.
Amos Williams, respondent in person.
The order appealed from sustains relator's writ of habeas corpus, and directs that he be resentenced upon his conviction on plea of guilty of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree. Relator had been indicted for murder in the first degree
This writ of habeas corpus has been sustained after a hearing, upon the ground that when relator was sentenced he was not asked by the Clerk of the court whether he had any legal cause to show why judgment should not be pronounced against him, as required by section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Relator did not testify at the hearing. His petition does not state what he would have said in extenuation or to bar the sentence if he had been given the opportunity which he avers was denied to him. The stenographic minutes show that at the time when sentence was pronounced he was represented by counsel, who made a plea to the court in his behalf. None of these factors would be a substitute for allocution under section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which has been held to be a jurisdictional prerequisite to sentence (People ex rel. Miller v. Martin, 1 N.Y.2d 406, 153 N.Y.S.2d 202), but on this record it is established that section 480 was complied with as matter of law.
The presumption of regularity of official proceedings would require the denial of the writ in the absence of any evidence concerning what did occur when relator was sentenced (People v. Smyth, 3 N.Y.2d 184, 187, 164 N.Y.S.2d 737, 738). Relator did not testify that he was not asked by the Clerk whether he had legal cause to show why sentence should not be pronounced against him. The Appellate Division by citing its memorandum of decision in People ex rel. Sheehan v. Murphy, 7 A.D.2d 889, 181 N.Y.S.2d 451, were careful to point out in their memorandum of affirmance that they were not holding that there was any burden on the People to disprove the claims of error contained in the petition. The only evidence that compliance with section 480 was omitted has to be found, if anywhere, in the stenographic minutes of the testimony and in the Clerk's minutes of what occurred when sentence was imposed. This, it seems to us, supports the presumption of regularity instead of overcoming it. Relator was sentenced on February 27, 1950. Immediately before the plea by his counsel in his behalf on that date, the transcript of the stenographic minutes contains the following notation:
'(The defendant was arraigned for sentence and asked the usual formal question.)' Moreover, as was stated at the Appellate Division in the dissenting opinion of Justice Halpern: 'After the handing down of the decision by the Special Term, the Attorney-General procured a photostatic copy of page 109 of Liber 597 of the minutes of the Clerk of the County Court of Kings County, showing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Passante
...v. Corcoran, 3 A.D.2d 955, 162 N.Y.S.2d 472; see also People v. Bean, 195 Misc. 1025, 91 N.Y.S.2d 371, and People ex rel. Williams v. Murphy, 6 N.Y.2d 234, 189 N.Y.S.2d 182), I find expressly in the official minute book, corresponding notations in a vertical column for defendant and for the......
-
Fhagen v. Miller
...respondent could not benefit from the "presumption of regularity of official proceedings," People ex rel. Williams v. Murphy, 6 N.Y.2d 234, 236, 189 N.Y.S.2d 182, 184, 160 N.E.2d 480, 481 (1959), which normally conditions allocation of the burden of 15 See Bolton v. Harris, 130 U.S.App.D.C.......
-
State v. Webb
...is not an acceptable substitute for the defendant's personal allocution rights. See, e.g., People ex rel. Williams v. Murphy, 6 N.Y.2d 234, 189 N.Y.S.2d 182, 160 N.E.2d 480 (1959); State v. Baker, 113 Ohio App. 59, 177 N.E.2d 348 (1960); and see 96 A.L.R.2d at 1331. In Mohn v. State, 584 P.......
-
People v. Torres
...of what happened in his case, not probabilities based on what occurred in other cases. See also People ex rel. Williams v. Murphy, 6 N.Y.2d 234, 236, 189 N.Y.S.2d 182, 160 N.E.2d 480 (1959) (stating, in context of claim that defendant was not afforded right to object before sentence was imp......