State v. Jefferson, 296
Citation | 123 A.2d 579,40 N.J.Super. 466 |
Decision Date | 21 June 1956 |
Docket Number | No. 296,296 |
Parties | The STATE of New Jersey v. Leroy JEFFERSON. Motion . Appellate Division. Considered |
Court | New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division |
Mr. Leroy Jefferson, pro se.
Before Judges GOLDMANN, FREUND and CONFORD.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
GOLDMANN, S.J.A.D.
Defendant's application for leave to appeal In forma pauperis is denied. He claims double jeopardy, arguing that the consecutive sentences imposed by the Monmouth County Court on January 22, 1954 on three charges of atrocious assault and battery were improper bacause the offenses arose out of one act and were established by the same evidence. He further contends, generally and without specification, that the indictment was improper because the three offenses, and six additional ones, were set up by way of nine separate counts.
The factual background of this case may be found in an unpublished opinion handed down by this court on October 13, 1954 (Docket A--730--53):
'Defendant appeals from an order of the Monmouth County Court denying his petition for correction of illegal sentence.
'The application here sounds in Habeas corpus, and not for correction of sentence, for defendant claims he is entitled to release from imprisonment forthwith. * * *' Defendant is now serving the consecutive sentences imposed on counts 1, 4 and 7. No sentences were imposed on the remaining six counts, and they are apparently awaiting Nolle pros. on the recommendation of the prosecutor.
Any objection that might theoretically be directed to the form of the indictment is entirely out of time. It could be raised only by direct appeal, and the time for appeal has passed. R.R. 1:3--1 and R.R. 1:27B (formerly R.R. 1:1--9). As observed in our former opinion, had defendant sought to enlarge the time for taking an appeal under R.R. 1:3--1--and he did not--the time for appeal would have expired on May 22, 1954, final judgment of conviction having been entered on January 22, 1954. The time within which a defendant must appeal has been held mandatory and jurisdictional. State v. Janiec, 6 N.J. 608, 80 A.2d 94 (1951).
Among the other contentions made on the former appeal was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Worbetz v. Goodman
...therefor by a pertinacious relator (In re Sabongy, 18 N.J.Super. 334, 87 A.2d 59 (Cty.Ct. 1952); 1952); State v. Jefferson, 40 N.J.Super. 466, 123 A.2d 579 (App.Div. 1956); Kline v. State, 41 N.J.Super. 391, 125 A.2d 311 Our panoramic scrutiny of such prior proceedings, not only permitted b......
-
State v. De Lucia
...abuse of the writ of Habeas corpus. State v. Pohlabel, 40 N.J.Super. 416, 422, 123 A.2d 391 (App.Div.1956); State v. Jefferson, 40 N.J.Super. 466, 471, 123 A.2d 579 (App.Div.1956); Kline v. State, 41 N.J.Super. 391, 397, 125 A.2d 311 (App.Div.1956); Worbetz v. Goodman, 47 N.J.Super. 391, 39......
-
Hornauer v. Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, Dept. of Law and Public Safety
... ... DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW ... AND PUBLIC SAFETY, State of New Jersey, Respondent ... George E. NEULS, t/a River View Inn, Appellant, ... DIVISION OF ... ...
-
State v. Vance
...State v. Billingsley, 46 N.J. 219, 216 A.2d 217 (1966); State v. Maxey, 42 N.J. 62, 198 A.2d 768 (1964); State v. Jefferson, 40 N.J.Super. 466, 470, 123 A.2d 579 (App.Div.1956). The cases cited by defendant are clearly distinguishable. In Mills, three deaths resulted from a single act of ar......