People v. Speiser
| Decision Date | 18 March 1938 |
| Citation | 277 N.Y. 342,14 N.E.2d 380 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. SPEISER et al. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
On reargument of an appeal by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, entered June 18, 1937, 251 App.Div. 807, 297 N.Y.S. 516, 251 App.Div. 807,298 N.Y.S. 188, which affirmed a judgment of the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York convicting defendants of the crime of conspiracy. Upon reargument, judgment as to defendant Speiser affirmed.
For prior opinion, see 277 N.Y. 531, 13 N.E.2d 460. Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First department.
George Gordon Battle, of New York City, for appellant Milton speiser.
Thomas E. Dewey, Dist. Atty., of New York City (Felix C. Benvenga and William P. Rogers, both of New York City, of counsel), for the People.
The judgment of conviction of defendant for conspiracy having been affirmed by this court, he has applied to us for reduction of sentence. The only question presented on this motion concerns the power of the Court of Appeals under section 543 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This is the language of the statute: ‘Upon hearing the appeal the appellate court may, in cases where an erroneous judgment has been entered upon a lawful verdict, or finding of fact, correct the judgment to conform to the judgment of finding; in all other cases they must either reverse or affirm the judgment appealed from or reduce the sentence imposed to a sentence not lighter than the minimum penalty provided by law for the offense of which the defendant or defendants have been convicted and in cases of reversal may, if necessary or proper, order a new trial.’
Under this statute, the Appellate Division has complete jurisdiction to reduce the sentence imposed upon this defendant. In examining the power of this court, however, section 543 must be read in connection with sections 7 and 8 of article 6, of the Constitution. Pursuant to section 7, except where the judgment is of death or where, in civil actions, the Appellate Division, on reversing or modifying, makes new findings, our jurisdiction is limited to the review of questions of law. The provisions of section 8 which confer upon ‘any appellate court’ the power to modify a judgment must necessarily exclude power by this court to modify on questions of fact or discretion except in the two instances provided for in section 7. In reviewing a judgment of conviction for a misdemeanor or for a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Alvarez, 13
...manner.1 125 N.E.3d 134 Article VI of the New York State Constitution created a unique wrinkle in that authority. In People v. Speiser, 277 N.Y. 342, 14 N.E.2d 380 [1938], we held that we, the State's highest court, lacked the power to review Appellate Division decisions reducing sentences ......
-
People v. Alvarez
...manner.1 125 N.E.3d 134 Article VI of the New York State Constitution created a unique wrinkle in that authority. In People v. Speiser, 277 N.Y. 342, 14 N.E.2d 380 [1938], we held that we, the State's highest court, lacked the power to review Appellate Division decisions reducing sentences ......
-
People v. Corapi
...Zuckerman, 5 N.Y.2d 401, 185 N.Y.S.2d 8 ).' (People v. Silver, 10 A.D.2d 274, 275, 199 N.Y.S.2d 254, 255, 256, see also, People v. Speiser, 277 N.Y. 342, 14 N.E.2d 380; People v. Kolodny, 10 A.D.2d 950, 201 N.Y.S.2d 420; People v. Lanza, 10 A.D.2d 315, 199 N.Y.S.2d 598; People v. Dendy, 18 ......
-
People v. Notey
...in this case, since the Court of Appeals lacks the power to review the appropriateness of a discretionary sentence (People v. Speiser, 277 N.Y. 342, 344, 14 N.E.2d 380, 381; People v. Gittleson, 18 N.Y.2d 427, 273 N.Y.S.2d 429, 219 N.E.2d 877), I must dissent and vote to It is my conviction......