State v. Mahaney
| Decision Date | 05 December 1905 |
| Citation | 62 A. 265,73 N.J.L. 53 |
| Parties | STATE v. MAHANEY. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Petition of John Mahaney for writ of habeas corpus. Writ denied.
Argued November term, 1905, before FORT, GARRETSON, and REED, JJ.
Peter J. McGinnis, for petitioner. William H. Speer, for the State.
The petition for the writ sets out that John Mahaney was convicted at the December term, 1899, of the Hudson county court of quarter sessions on two indictments for the crime of breaking with intent, and that he was sentenced on the first indictment to be imprisoned for the term of seven years, and on the second indictment for the term of five years in the State Prison. The petition states that the sentence of seven years expired on the 25th day of August, 1905, and that he is still imprisoned by virtue of the second sentence of five years. Copies of the commitments are annexed to the petition. The first commitment recites that the petitioner was sentenced to hard labor for the term of seven years, and that he pay the costs of prosecution, and be further imprisoned from and after the said term of seven years until the costs of prosecution are paid. The second conviction recites that he be imprisoned for the term of five years, with the same conditions. On the back of the second conviction is indorsed: "This term to begin at the expiration of the sentence imposed in indictment No. 53, September term, 1899."
The return to the writ contains a certified copy of the judgment record, setting out that in the September term, 1899, two indictments were found against the petitioner for breaking with intent, and that on the first of these indictments he was tried and convicted, and on the second indictment he pleaded guilty. On the first indictment, indictment No. 53, he was sentenced to be imprisoned in the New Jersey State Prison for the term of seven years, and thence till the costs of prosecution were paid, and on the second indictment he was sentenced to be imprisoned for the period of five years, and thence until the costs of the prosecution were paid, which said last-mentioned sentence was ordered to commence upon the expiration of the sentence imposed under indictment No. 53 of the term of September, 1899. Thus the judgment record shows that, as a part of the sentence of five years, it was adjudged that the sentence do commence upon the expiration of the sentence imposed on indictment No. 53 of the term of September, 1899. A prisoner confined on a sentence will not be released on habeas corpus for errors in the mittimus when the court has the judgment before it. Sennot's Case, 146 Mass. 489, 16 N. E. 448, 4 Am. St. Rep. 344. The judgment is the source of the right of the keeper of the State Prison to detain the petitioner. Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417, 5 Sup. Ct. 935, 29 L. Ed. 89; People v. Baker, 89 N. Y. 461.
The question, then, is whether the court had the power to pronounce the second judgment imposing a sentence to commence after the term of the preceeding sentence should terminate. That a court possesses this power was decided in England before the period of the American Revolution. In 1770 John Wilkes, having been twice convicted of libel, was sentenced to a term of imprisonment on each indictment, the sentence on the last to begin at the end of the period for which he was sentenced on the first. This judgment was taken by writ of error to the House of Parliament, and by that house the question was propounded to the bench of judges, whether the judgment upon the second conviction to commence from and after the termination of imprisonment to which he was sentenced for another offense was good in law. The answer was that the judgment of imprisonment is good in law. This case of Rex v. Wilkes is reported in 4 Burrows, 2577, and in 19 Howell's State Trials, 1133, 1134. As appears from the opinion of Chief Justice Wilmot, reported in the last-mentioned book, the doctrine was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Quested
...274 Kan. at 817, 57 P.3d 1 (quoting State In Interest of J.L.A., 136 N.J. 370, 374, 643 A.2d 538 [1994] [quoting State v. Mahaney, 73 N.J.L. 53, 56, 62 A. 265 (Sup.Ct.1905) ] ). And the New Jersey Supreme Court therefore concluded that in the absence of an express statutory prohibition, a t......
-
Worbetz v. Goodman
...758; cf. State v. Cianci, 18 N.J. 191, 113 A.2d 176 (1955)). These sentences could have been consecutive in nature (State v. Mahaney, 73 N.J.L. 53, 62 A. 265 (Sup.Ct.1905); In re De Luccia, 10 N.J.Super. 374, 76 A.2d 304 (Cty.Ct.1950)), encompassing a total of 60 years, less the good behavi......
-
State v. Yarbough
...mainly noted that our courts have the discretion and power to impose consecutive sentences for terms of years, citing State v. Mahaney, 73 N.J.L. 53, 62 A 265 (Sup.Ct.1905), aff'd, 74 N.J.L. 849, 67 A. 1103 (E. & A.1907). At common law, since death was the penalty for all felonies, "there w......
-
Ex parte Sabongy
...to punish distinct violations of the law with separate and cumulative penalties. 15 Am.Jur., Criminal Law, sec. 470; State v. Mahaney, 73 N.J.L. 53, 62 A. 265 (Sup.Ct.1905); United States v. Daugherty, 269 U.S. 360, 46 S.Ct. 156, 70 L.Ed. 309 On the other hand, the petitioners contend that ......