Smith v. Warden of Conn. State Prison
| Decision Date | 25 November 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 139931,139931 |
| Citation | 25 Conn.Supp. 509,209 A.2d 521 |
| Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
| Parties | Richard J. SMITH v. WARDEN OF CONNECTICUT STATE PRISON. |
Richard J. Smith, pro se.
John D. LaBelle, State's Atty., for defendant.
This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging unlawful imprisonment. The petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of breaking and entering with criminal intent and one count of larceny in excess of $250 but not in excess of $2000. He received an effective sentence of not less than three years nor more than eight years in the state prison, where he is now confined.
It is the petitioner's sole claim that his confinement is illegal because he was prosecuted by an information of a state's attorney and not by an indictment of a grand jury, and that such procedure violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution, which provides as follows: 'No State shall * * * deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' U.S.Const. amend. XIV § 1. If this claim has constitutional validity, the gates of the state prison will open to all but a very few of its inmates, as they were prosecuted by information of a state's attorney and not by a grand jury indictment.
The procedure complained of here, where the petitioner was prosecuted upon an information and not by grand jury indictment, has been held not to violate the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 4 S.Ct. 292, 28 L.Ed. 232; Kennedy v. Walker, 135 Conn. 262, 63 A.2d 589. However, in this case the petitioner chooses to rely solely on the above quoted equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment.
The constitution of Connecticut provides: '* * * no person shall be holden to answer for any crime, the punishment of which may be death or imprisonment for life, unless on a presentment or an indictment of a grand jury * * *.' Conn. Const. art. 1 § 9. We have a statute which provides as follows: 'For all crimes not punishable by death or imprisonment for life, the prosecution may be by complaint or information.' General Statutes § 54-46. In this state, all persons charged with crimes punishable by death or life imprisonment are prosecuted only by indictment of a grand jury. All persons charged with other crimes are prosecuted by information.
It appears to be the petitioner's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gyuro
...in a recent habeas corpus proceeding in the Superior Court arising out of breaking and entering and larceny convictions; Smith v. Warden, 25 Conn.Sup. 509, 209 A.2d 521; in which the application for the writ was denied, and the United States Supreme Court, as recently as June 1, 1965, dismi......
-
Murov v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.
...209 A.2d 517 ... 25 Conn.Supp. 504 ... Isaac MUROV ... LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY ... ...