State v. La Battaglia, A--105
Decision Date | 15 February 1954 |
Docket Number | No. A--105,A--105 |
Citation | 30 N.J.Super. 1,103 A.2d 162 |
Parties | STATE v. LA BATTAGLIA. . Appellate Division. Considered |
Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Benjamin Asbell, First Asst. Prosecutor, Camden, for the respondent (Mitchell H. Cohen, Prosecutor of the Pleas of Camden County, Camden, attorney).
Rocco La Battaglia, pro se.
Before Judges EASTWOOD, JAYNE and FRANCIS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
EASTWOOD, S.J.A.D.
The defendant Rocco La Battaglia, at a trial before the Camden County Court and a jury, was convicted on an indictment charging him with the crime of robbery. Thereafter, on October 23, 1950, he was sentenced to a term of not more than 15 nor less than 7 1/2 years in State Prison. He now appeals from a refusal by the Law Division of this court to issue a writ of Habeas corpus to review certain aspects of his conviction and present detention.
It is the defendant's contention that he is unlawfully confined because the crime of robbery was not proved at the trial; that at best, under the proofs, he could have been convicted only of larceny from the person; that the indictment returned against him was defective in that it charged him with the crime of robbery, which crime he did not commit, and that if any indictment were returned against him, it should have been for the crime of larceny from the person and that the indictment was also defective in that 'the money was not particularly described.'
A review of this appeal, and of numerous prior appeals of a like nature instituted by those confined in penal institutions, convinces us that there is either a gross misconception of the nature and purpose of the writ of Habeas corpus or there is a deliberate attempt to engage in futile litigation as a pastime. Our courts have repeatedly and consistently enunciated the specific relief attainable by Habeas corpus. It always has been and still is a most important remedy to safeguard and give relief to those who are unlawfully deprived of their liberty. Perhaps, it may be helpful to re-emphasize the long established principles applicable to Habeas corpus.
The writ of Habeas corpus is a high prerogative writ, it is not ordinarily issuable as a matter of right, but is permissive at the discretion of the court. It only becomes one of right when the applicant shows that he is entitled to it. In re Davis, 107 N.J.Eq. 160, 152 A. 188 (Ch.1930). It is a common-law, not a statutory, writ. Our statute did not create the writ to prevent the injury of illegal confinement, but recognized its existence and enacted legislation with reference to it as a common-law writ. In re Thompson, 85 N.J.Eq. 221, 96 A. 102 (Ch.1915).
The pertinent and controlling statute here is found in N.J.S. 2A:67--14, N.J.S.A. (formerly R.S. 2:82--13), providing:
'The persons hereinafter specified shall not be entitled to prosecute writ of habeas corpus:
In the instant case it is quite clear that the defendant is incarcerated and detained by virtue of a final judgment of a competent court. It is idle, indeed, to argue that there is a debatable question as to the jurisdiction of the Camden County Court in which the defendant was tried, over his person and the subject matter. Nor is there any uncertainty that the indictment returned was within the competency of the grand jury's consideration and authority. In re Scridlow, 124 N.J.L. 342, 11 A.2d 837 (Sup.Ct.1940). The defendant's proceeding by way of Habeas corpus is a collateral attack on the judgment of conviction and is not maintainable. State v. Cynkowski, 19 N.J.Super. 243, 88 A.2d 220 (App.Div.1952); affirmed 10 N.J. 571, 92 A.2d 782 (1952); In re Janiec, 137 N.J.L. 94, 58 A.2d 543 (Sup.Ct.1948). In a very illuminating and instructive opinion by Chancellor Walker in the case of In re Davis, supra, (107 N.J.Eq. 160, 152 A. 194) it was held that:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. New Jersey State Parole Bd.
...107 N.J.Eq. 160, 164--165, 152 A. 188 (Ch.1930); In re Van Winkle, 3 N.J. 348, 355--356, 70 A.2d 167 (1950); Sate v. La Battaglia, 30 N.J.Super. 1, 3, 103 A.2d 162 (App.Div.1954); N.J.S.A. 2A:67--1 et seq.; 39 Am.Jur.2d Habeas Corpus, §§ 1, 8, 9. It is preserved Eo nomine in our State Const......
-
Ben Ali v. Towe
...... defendant, the Acting Prosecutor of Bergen County, and later Green was convicted and sent to State's Prison. Shortly after his arrest, Green's mother and two married sisters, the ......
-
Garofone, In re
...re Caruso, 131 N.J.L. 505, 37 A.2d 277 (Sup.Ct.1944); In re Cooley, 12 N.J.Super. 97, 79 A.2d 98 (Cty.Ct.1951); State v. LaBattaglia, 30 N.J.Super. 1, 103 A.2d 162 (App.Div.1954). In re Bogish, 69 N.J.Super. 146, 173 A.2d 906 (Law I find that the third contention of petitioner is not a prop......
-
State v. Mastic, A--89
...N.J.Super. 309, 102 A.2d 647 (App.Div.1954), certiorari denied 348 U.S. 847, 75 S.Ct. 71, 99 L.Ed. 668 (1954); State v. La Battaglia, 30 N.J.Super. 1, 103 A.2d 162 (App.Div.1954). ' It patently appears that most of the postulated errors of which the defendant has so belatedly complained imp......