State v. Forsythe, A--131
| Decision Date | 24 January 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. A--131,A--131 |
| Citation | 120 A.2d 127,38 N.J.Super. 578 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. John FORSYTHE, Defendant-Appellant. . Appellate Division |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
John Forsythe, appellant, pro se.
Martin J. Queenan, Burlington County Prosecutor, Burlington, for respondent.
Before Judges CLAPP, JAYNE and FRANCIS.
The opinion of the court was delivered
The petitioner, an inmate of the New Jersey State Prison, who has aggressively, repeatedly, and futilely challenged in the federal and state courts the legality of his imprisonment for the commission of the crimes of entering without breaking and larceny, atrocious assault and battery, and escape from jail, applied on June 15, 1955 for the issuance of a writ of Habeas corpus.
He alleged in his verified petition that the record discloses that his attorney entered on his behalf pleas of Non vult to the respective indictments charging him with the perpetration of those offenses, whereas the fact is that he did not commit them and he never authorized his attorney to enter such pleas for him and never heard the submission of such pleas to the court Vide, State v. Piracci, 14 N.J.Super. 319, 323, 82 A.2d 213 (App.Div.1951). His petition was dismissed, from which judicial action he has been permitted to prosecute the present appeal In forma pauperis.
We do not have before us the written or oral opinion of the judge who dismissed the petition from which we can derive knowledge of his reasons. Perhaps in the light of the information authentically presented to him, his reasons were sound. Whether the most improbable allegation that the petitioner never authorized his attorney to enter the plead of Non vult and never heard them announced in court is a subject which was previously considered and adjudicated is to us unknown. A chronological summarization of the several proceedings previously and unsuccessfully pursued by the petitioner is given to us by the prosecutor with the frank acknowledgment that 'much of the foregoing is Dehors the immediate record before the Court,' and that 'to include copies of the multitudinous papers, applications, motions, briefs, appendices, orders and opinions in an appendix herein is prohibitive in the light of time and cost involved.'
In the existing state of the record before us and the presence of the verified allegations of the petition to which we have referred, we prefer to accord the petitioner a hearing of his allegation that his attorney entered the pleas without his authority and contemporaneous knowledge. State v. Lenkowski, 24 N.J.Super. 444, 94 A.2d 845 (App.Div.1953); State v. Fontano, 26 N.J.Super. 166, 97 A.2d 498 (App.Div.1953), affirmed 14 N.J. 173, 101 A.2d 559 (1953), certiorari denied 347 U.S. 945, 74 S.Ct. 641, 98 L.Ed. 1093 (1954). See, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex rel. Herman v. Claudy, 76 S.Ct. 223, 227, in which the court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Reali, A--80
...116, 76 S.Ct. 223, 100 L.Ed. 126 (1956); State v. Lenkowski, 24 N.J.Super. 444, 94 A.2d 845 (App.Div.1953); State v. Forsythe, 38 N.J.Super. 578, 120 A.2d 127 (App.Div.1956). Since, however, the conceded circumstances require a finding in appellant's favor, a final disposition may be made T......
-
State v. Forsythe, AM--113
...of the order dismissing defendant's petition for the writ and a remand to the County Court for a hearing. State v. Forsythe, 38 N.J.Super. 578, 120 A.2d 127 (App.Div.1956). The hearing was held and the County Court entered an order denying the petition. Defendant then applied to us, through......
-
State v. Forsythe, A--611
...the statements in affidavit form accompanying the petition were uncontradicted and, if true, warranted relief. State v. Forsythe, 38 N.J.Super. 578, 120 A.2d 127 (App.Div.1956). A hearing was held, and the writ discharged. Prisoner The record discloses that on July 15, 1952 Forsythe and two......