Stanfield v. Malcomb

• Decision Date: 27 July 1972
• Parties: Application of Harold STANFIELD, Petitioner, For a Judgment in the nature of Mandamus, pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules v. Hon. Benjamin MALCOMB, Commissioner, New York City Department of Correction, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 947

334 N.Y.S.2d 947

70 Misc.2d 879

Application of Harold STANFIELD, Petitioner, For a Judgment in the nature of Mandamus, pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules v. Hon. Benjamin MALCOMB, Commissioner, New York City Department of Correction, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County, Part I.

July 27, 1972.

Harold Stanfield pro se.

J. Lee Rankin, Corp. Counsel, New York City, for respondent Benjamin Malcomb.

OLIVER C. SUTTON, Justice.

In this Article 78 proceeding, petitioner seeks a judgment directing the respondent Commissioner of the Department of Correction to re-compute the jail time credited against his sentence after conviction on a plea of guilty under the first count of Indictment 4148/70 to cover that indictment and also to cover Indictments numbered 1432 of '71, 1827 of '70 and 5595 of '69.

The computation of jail time which is challenged by the petitioner is set forth in a letter to the Superintendent, Sing Sing Correctional Facility, dated May 4, 1972 and signed by Albert Glick, Warden of the Manhattan House of Detention for Men. The said letter states in part, 'He was sentenced on Indictment no. 1827--70 which also covers Indictment no. 4148--70, 1432--71, and 1827--70 and 5595--69. He has been correctly credited with all jail time applicable to Indictment no. 1827--70, only, . . . Jail time is credited only on the indictment on which he is sentenced.' Moreover, in a letter to the Hon. J. Lee Rankin, Corporation Counsel for the City of New York, dated May 23, 1972 and signed by James S. Latham of the Legal Division of the Correction Department it was stated, 'Since Stanfield was sentenced under Indictment #1827--70 only, his jail time credit of 48 days as set forth in the Warden's communication (exhibit A in this petition) is correct. If he had been sentenced on all indictments, his jail time would have been computed differently.' Thus, it is clear that petitioner's jail time was computed and allowed only on Indictment #1827--70.

The minutes of the plea session, the minutes of the sentencing and the commitment papers show that petitioner was sentenced under Indictment #4148--70 and that the said sentence covers Indictments numbered 1432--71, 1827--70 and 5595--69. Excerpts from page 6 of the minutes of sentencing read as follows.

THE COURT: This sentence is to cover not only Indictment 4148 but 1432 of '71, 1827 of '70 and 5595 of '69.

MR. LEVIEN: On the record, your honor, the defendant has been incarcerated approximately one year.

THE COURT: He gets credit for all time. That's automatic.

These documents reveal that the Correction Department's communications explaining their method of computing the jail time in question here are in error in at least two particulars. First, they cite the incorrect indictment number under which petitioner was sentenced. Second, after citing the incorrect indictment number they list that indictment number again as being covered by the indictment. However, had the Correction Department cited the correct indictment number under which the plea was taken, its computation of time would have been no days, as the records reflect that under Indictment number 4148 the defendant was bailed out on the same day he was arrested. The question before the Court is, was the Correction Department correct in its interpretation of Penal Law 70.30(3) as to the computation of defendant's jail time?

It is the contention of the Correction Department that they are mandated by Penal Law 70.30(3) to compute a defendant's jail time as indicated in their communications.

The Court holds that this interpretation of Section 70.03(3) of the Penal Law is erroneous. The pertinent part of...