People v. Wright
| Decision Date | 26 April 1972 |
| Citation | 332 N.Y.S.2d 231,69 Misc.2d 1050 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Wilbert WRIGHT, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty. (Stephen Sawyer, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Eppinger & Reingold (Theodore Eppinger, New York City, of counsel), for defendant.
The defendant, arraigned for hearing to determine whether he should be sentenced as a persistent felony offender, challenges his proposed designation as such on the ground that his prior record does not establish two prior felony convictions within the definition of the persistent felony offender law. Penal Law, Section 70.10.
Defendant admittedly has been convicted of two prior felonies before his instant conviction of manslaughter in the first degree on March 2, 1972. He was convicted of manslaughter in the second degree and was sentenced on November 22, 1961, to state prison for a term of seven and one-half to ten years. The propriety of this conviction, or its use as a predicate felony conviction in these proceedings, is not challenged by the defendant.
Previously, defendant had been convicted of burglary in the third degree and was sentenced on November 5, 1959, to Elmira Reformatory. The use of this conviction as a predicate felony conviction by reason of his sentence to Elmira Reformatory is challenged by the defendant. Indisputably, he actually was confined in the institution from November 5, 1959, until May 4, 1961, when he was paroled after having served approximately eighteen months, a period substantially in excess of one year.
Penal Law, Section 70.10 sets forth the criteria to determine the applicability of a previous felony conviction in persistent felony offender proceedings. The tests which must be met are as follows: The defendant must have been (1) convicted of a felony in this State, (2) sentenced to a term of imprisonment in excess of one year, (3) imprisoned under such sentence prior to the commission of the present felony, and (4) was not pardoned on the ground of innocence. The foregoing sentence of the defendant to Elmira Reformatory meets all of the tests set forth in the statute. To support his position, the defendant points to the language contained in the practice commentary under this section of McKinney's Consolidated Laws, Volume 39, Penal Law, page 127, which reads: 'Sentences of probation, conditional and unconditional discharge, and Reformatory sentences do not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marple v. Manson, Civ. No. 15525.
...But there is at least a substantial risk of such a construction in New York and perhaps elsewhere under similar statutes. Cf. People v. Wright, 69 Misc.2d 1050, 332 N. Y.S.2d 231 Mancusi v. Stubbs, 408 U.S. 204, 92 S.Ct. 2308, 33 L.Ed.2d 293 (1972), indicates that even the possibility of co......
-
People v. Williams
...U.S. 856, 96 S.Ct. 106, 46 L.Ed.2d 82, we affirmed on the opinion by Justice Irwin D. Davidson at Trial Term. That opinion (69 Misc.2d 1050, 1051, 332 N.Y.S.2d 231) stated with respect to the Practice Commentary (the Commission Staff Notes apparently were not cited to him) that: "The commen......
-
People v. Jones
...prior reformatory sentence was properly utilized as a predicate for persistent felon treatment (Penal Law, § 70.10; People v. Wright, 69 Misc.2d 1050, 332 N.Y.S.2d 231, affd. 43 A.D.2d 666, 350 N.Y.S.2d 344, affd. 35 N.Y.2d 944, 365 N.Y.S.2d 169, 324 N.E.2d 550, cert. den. 423 U.S. 856, 96 ......
-
People v. Murphy
...court properly relied upon defendant's 1972 conviction to support the persistent felony offender determination (People v. Wright, 69 Misc.2d 1050, 332 N.Y.S.2d 231, affd. 43 A.D.2d 666, 349 N.Y.S.2d 990 affd. 35 N.Y.2d 944, 365 N.Y.S.2d 169, 324 N.E.2d We note that defendant failed to objec......