People v. Baker
Citation | 278 N.Y.S.2d 309,27 A.D.2d 269 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Walter BAKER, Defendant-Appellant. |
Decision Date | 23 March 1967 |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
William E. Hellerstein, New York City, of counsel (Anthony F. Marra, New York City, attorney), for appellant.
Lewis R. Friedman, Asst. Dist. Atty., of counsel (Michael Juviler, New York City, on the brief; Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty.), for respondent.
Before STEUER, J.P., and CAPOZZOLI, TILZER, and McNALLY, JJ.
The appellant interposed a plea of guilty to the charges of Unlawful Entry and Petit Larceny on April 11, 1966. The indictment charged the defendant with the crimes of Burglary in the Third Degree (first count), Attempted Grand Larceny in the First Degree and Petit Larceny. The proceeding before the Court was as follows:
(Discussion off the record at the bench between the Assistant District Attorney, defendant's attorney, and the Court.)
(The defendant was duly arraigned.)
Defendant's attorney: May it please the Court, the defendant, Walter Baker, requests permission to plead guilty to the misdemeanor of unlawful entry, under the first count of the indictment, and the misdemeanor of petit larceny, the third count of the indictment, said plea to cover all counts of the indictment.
Assistant District Attorney: The People respectfully recommend acceptance of that plea, your Honor.
The Court: Walter Baker, do you wish to plead guilty to the two misdemeanors as offered on your behalf by your lawyer?
The Defendant: Yes.
The Court: By your pleas of guilty, do you admit that on March 7, 1966, at about eight o'clock in the evening, you unlawfully broke into and entered apartment 2B, at premises 27 West 70th Street, in New York County, with the intent to commit a crime therein and did, in fact, steal some personal property belonging to Barry Tischler? Do you admit those acts?
The Defendant: I admit the attempted burglary.
Defendant's Attorney: He is not discussing that.
(Defendant's attorney confers with defendant.)
The Defendant: Yes.
The Court: Do you admit those acts, sir?
The Defendant: Yes.
The Court: Which constitute the two crimes to which you have offered to plead guilty to?
The Defendant: Yes.
The Court: Now, has anyone given you any kind of an indication as to what sentence I would impose upon you, in order to induce you to plead guilty to these crimes? Has anyone made any promise to you of any kind?
The Defendant: No, sir.
The Court: Take the plea.
The Clerk: Walter Baker, do you plead guilty to the crime of unlawfully entering a building, a misdemeanor, under the first count, and petit larceny, a misdemeanor, the third count, both said pleas to cover the indictment? Are they your pleas?
The Defendant: Yes:
(The defendant was duly sworn and pedigreed.)
The Clerk: Date of sentence, Judge?
The Court: Do you wish to be sentenced today? Do you waive your two days' notice?
The Defendant: Yes.
The Court: Second call for sentence.
(Whereupon, a recess was taken in the above proceedings.)
After the recess the following occurred:
The Court: No. 27, Walter Baker.
(The defendant is arraigned at the bar.)
The Clerk: Is your name Walter Baker?
The Defendant: Yes, sir.
The Clerk: Your attorney * * * is present in court.
Baker, do you waive your right to two days' time before sentence?
The Defendant: Yes.
The Clerk: Defendant's attorney.
Defendant's Attorney: Here, again, the defendant was afforded consideration in being permitted to plead guilty to two misdemeanors. I ask Your Honor to deal with him as leniently as possible.
The Court: On each count, Penitentiary, one year, said sentences to run consecutively and not concurrently.
Please advise him of his right to appeal.
(Off-the-record conference between defendant's attorney and the defendant.)
Defendant's Attorney: I have advised the defendant of his right to appeal and the procedure.
The Court: Remand the defendant.
Raised on this appeal is whether the sentences constituted double punishment for a single act in violation of Penal Law Section 1938 and whether consecutive sentences under these facts are precluded by Penal Law Section 406.
Section 1938 of the Penal Law provides as follows:
'An act or omission which is made criminal and punishable in different ways, by different provisions of law, may be punished under any one of those provisions, but not under more than one'.
The Court of Appeals in People ex rel. Maurer v. Jackson, 2 N.Y.2d 259, 264, 265, 159 N.Y.S.2d 203, 206, 208, 140 N.E.2d 282, formulated standards testing the validity of consecutive sentencing under Section 1938:
'We recognize that Section 1938 is not by its terms limited to included crimes, although it is clear that the statute will there apply; if, however, the acts are separable, it will not apply.' (at pp. 264, 265, 159 N.Y.S.2d at p. 206, 140 N.E.2d at p. 284,--italics in original).
The statute (Section 1938) and the Court of Appeals in Jackson make it clear that in determining the applicability of Section 1938 we must direct our attention to the Acts committed by the defendant. The defendant, as aforesaid, admitted not only the act of breaking, of unlawful entry, but also a separate act of stealing Tischler's personal property. '* * * (T)he test is not whether the criminal intent is one and the same and inspiring the whole transaction, but whether separate acts have been committed with the requisite criminal intent * * *.' (Morgan v. Devine, 237 U.S. 632, 640, 35 S.Ct. 712, 714, 59 L.Ed. 1153 (1914).)
The test applied by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, to Section 1938, on the other hand, looks to the motivating force of the transaction to determine whether 'separate and distinct acts were committed' (People v. Kelley, 25 A.D.2d 715, 270 N.Y.S.2d 127 (1966)). The Kelley procedure which looks to the intent and objective of the criminal, is the interpretation which the highest court of California has given to its statute, Penal Code Section 654, which is similar to our Section 1938:
'Few if any crimes, however, are the result of a single physical act. 'Section 654 has been applied not only where there was but one 'act' in the ordinary sense * * * but also where a course of conduct violated more than one statute and the problem was whether it comprised a divisible transaction which could be punished under more than one statute within the meaning of section 654.' * * *
(Neal v. State of California, 55 Cal.2d 11, 19, 9 Cal.Rptr. 607, 611, 357 P.2d 839, 843--844 (1960) (Emphasis added), cert. denied 365 U.S. 823, 81 S.Ct. 708, 5 L.Ed.2d 700.)
The Supreme Court of California has not been unanimous in applying the 'intent and objective test.' One who has vigorously dissented has been Justice Schauer, to whom the writer is indebted for a wide-ranging review of the 'intent and objective test.' Justice Schauer suggests that:
(People v. McFarland, 58 Cal.2d 748, 26 Cal.Rptr. 473, 493, 376 P.2d 449, Schauer, J., dissenting, p. 771, 26 Cal.Rptr. 488--501, at p. 493, 376 P.2d 464--477, at p. 469.)
As Justice Schauer noted, the courts of this State, with the exception perhaps of the Fourth Department, have refused to follow People v. Savarese, 1 Misc.2d 305. The Fourth Department, for that matter, in a case decided some years before Kelley, People v. McCall, 16 A.D.2d 313, 228 N.Y.S.2d 52 (1962), held that:
(at p. 318, 228 N.Y.S.2d at p. 57)
See also People v. Black, 18 A.D.2d 719, 236 N.Y.S.2d 240 (2nd Dept. 1962)...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Wise
...cert. den. 324 U.S. 884, 65 S.Ct. 1025, 89 L.Ed. 1434 (1945); State v. McAfee, 78 N.M. 108, 428 P.2d 647 (1967); People v. Baker, 27 App.Div.2d 269, 278 N.Y.S.2d 309 (1967), aff'd 19 N.Y.2d 982, 281 N.Y.S.2d 527, 228 N.E.2d 695 (1967); State v. Revelle, 301 N.C. 153, 270 S.E.2d 476 (1980); ......
-
McCullough v. Bennett, Docket No. 04-0081-PR.
...were committed with the requisite criminal intent in determining whether consecutive sentences are appropriate (see, People v. Baker, 27 A.D.2d 269, 272, 278 N.Y.S.2d 309, affd 19 N.Y.2d 982, 281 N.Y.S.2d 527, 228 N.E.2d 695). People v. Scandell, 143 A.D.2d 423, 424, 532 N.Y.S.2d 424, 425 (......
-
People v. Day
...inspiring the whole transaction, but whether separate acts have been committed with the requisite criminal intent' " (People v. Baker, 27 A.D.2d 269, 272, 278 N.Y.S.2d 309, affd. 19 N.Y.2d 982, 281 N.Y.S.2d 527, 228 N.E.2d 695, quoting Morgan v. Devine, 237 U.S. 632, 640, 35 S.Ct. 712, 714,......
-
People v. Crayton
...170, 250 N.Y.S.2d 261, 199 N.E.2d 361; People ex rel. Maurer v. Jackson, 2 N.Y.2d 259, 159 N.Y.S.2d 203, 140 N.E.2d 282; People v. Baker, 27 A.D.2d 269 278 N.Y.S.2d 309). The judgment of conviction should be affirmed and order denying motion to amend minutes HECHT, J., concurs. MARKOWITZ, J......