People v. Newcombe
| Decision Date | 08 April 1963 |
| Citation | 18 A.D.2d 1087,239 N.Y.S.2d 378 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. David George NEWCOMBE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
John G. McCarthy, Huntington, for appellant.
Bernard C. Smith, Dist. Atty., Riverhead, for respondent. Charles T. Matthews, Huntington, of counsel.
Before UGHETTA, Acting P. J., and CHRIST, BRENNAN, HILL and RABIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered May 28, 1962 upon his plea of guilty on July 22, 1958, convicting him of attempted grand larceny in the second degree, and imposing sentence.
Judgment reversed on the law; indictment dismissed; and defendant discharged. No questions of fact were considered.
The defendant was indicted by the Grand Jury of Suffolk County on June 25, 1958 for burglary in the third degree and grand larceny in the second degree. On July 22, 1958, he pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of attempted grand larceny in the second degree, in satisfaction of all counts of the indictment, and was released on bail to await sentencing on September 16, 1958. On August 18, 1958, the defendant was arrested by Federal authorities for violation of Federal law, was thereafter convicted of these charges on his plea of guilty, and was sentenced to serve a term of four years imprisonment at the United States Penitentiary at Atlanta, Georgia. He completed the service of this sentence on February 17, 1962; and, pursuant to a detainer warrant filed with the Federal authorities, he was returned to Suffolk County for sentencing upon his plea of guilty of July 22, 1958. He was sentenced on May 28, 1962.
While in Federal custody, the defendant had demanded that he be sentenced on the Suffolk County charges; and, toward that end, he had petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. The District Attorney opposed the application; and the defendant's effort in that direction was unsuccessful. In November, 1960 defendant had made an application to dismiss the Suffolk County indictment on the ground that he had been deprived of a speedy trial. That application was also denied; and, on appeal, this court affirmed, 'without prejudice, however, to the right of the defendant, if so advised, to renew his claim on any appeal which he may take from the judgment entered after he has been sentenced' (16 A.D.2d 669). On the present appeal from the judgment, the defendant has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Harper
...will generally find it unreasonable. See Drake, supra; Harty, supra; People v. Bliss, 17 A.D.2d 767, 232 N.Y.S.2d 273; People v. Newcombe, 18 A.D.2d 1087, 239 N.Y.S.2d 378. Where the delay is explained and is appropriate to the circumstances the courts generally deem it reasonable. See, e.g......
-
People v. Drake
...sentencing her. Her petition was dismissed. Although delays of similar duration had been held to be unreasonable (see People v. Newcombe, 18 A.D.2d 1087, 239 N.Y.S.2d 378; Juarez-Casares v. United States, 496 F.2d 190 (5th Cir.)), we rejected petitioner's claim because the period of delay w......
-
People v. Winfrey
...is a Federal prisoner (People v. Piscitello, 7 N.Y.2d 387, 198 N.Y.S.2d 273, 274, 165 N.E.2d 849, 850, supra). A Federal statute 1087, 239 N.Y.S.2d 378; People v. Peters, 16 A.D.2d 171, 226 N.Y.S.2d 971, revg. 198 Misc. 956, 101 N.Y.S.2d 755). The rationale for this rule is that a procedure......
-
State v. Johnson
...v. United States, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 183, 238 F.2d 259 (1956); Arizona v. Kostura, 98 Ariz. 186, 403 P.2d 283 (1965); People v. Newcombe, 18 A.D.2d 1087, 239 N.Y.S.2d 378 (1963).2 35 Univ. of Cinti.L.R. 179, 188 (1966). This article thoroughly discusses the problem of 'Interjurisdictional Conf......