State v. Schreffler
| Citation | 164 A.2d 192,63 N.J.Super. 148 |
| Decision Date | 30 September 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. A--542--59,A--542--59 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Frank Earl SCHREFFLER, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Thomas L. Smith, Salem County Pros., Penns Grove, for the state.
Frank Earl Schreffler, Jr., pro se.
Before Judges GOLDMANN, FREUND and KILKENNY.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
KILKENNY, J.A.D.
In September 1956 the defendant was indicted in Salem County for the crime of carnal abuse, N.J.S. 2A:138--1, N.J.S.A. and for the crime of assault with intent to commit carnal abuse, N.J.S. 2A:85--1, N.J.S.A. He first pleaded not guilty, but thereafter, on November 9, 1956, withdrew his not guilty plea and entered a plea of Non vult to both indictments and placed himself upon the mercy of the court. He then had the assistance and advice of court-assigned counsel and fully understood the effect of his new plea, as the record below shows.
Thereupon the Salem County Court, proceeding under N.J.S. 2A:164--3, N.J.S.A., which applied to persons convicted of the offense of carnal abuse and other sex crimes specified therein, ordered the defendant committed to a diagnostic center for a complete physical and mental examination. This was done. Based upon the written report and recommendation of the diagnostic center, as required by N.J.S. 2A:164--5 and 6, N.J.S.A. but in the exercise of discretion as to the alternative measures to be pursued, the Salem County Court committed the defendant to the New Jersey State Hospital at Ancora on January 21, 1957, for treatment as a sex offender. In so doing no minimum or maximum term for his commitment was specified by the court, all in accordance with N.J.S. 2A:164--6, N.J.S.A., which specifically provides, 'Such order of commitment shall not specify a minimum period of detention, but in no event shall a person be confined or subject to parole supervision for a period of time greater than that provided by law for the crime of which such person was convicted.'
On May 13, 1957 the defendant escaped from the hospital. He was apprehended shortly thereafter and charged with and convicted of another sex crime committed by him after his escape. The Camden County Court sentenced him for that new offense to State Prison for a term of not less than three nor more than seven years.
On July 31, 1957 the Commissioner of Institutions and Agencies, pursuant to the discretion vested in him by N.J.S. 2A:164--7, N.J.S.A., transferred the defendant to the New Jersey State Prison where he is presently confined.
In 1959 the defendant made a motion before the Salem County Court to have a minimum and maximum term fixed for his confinement resulting from the 1956 offenses, but that court on January 22, 1960 denied his motion. This appeal is from the judgment denying that motion.
The defendant labors under the misconception that he was not Sentenced by the Salem County Court, but was Sentenced by the hospital authorities for a term of 30 years. Actually, the defendant was not 'sentenced' at all, but rather 'committed' to an institution for treatment under the Sex Offender Act. Apparently he had made inquiry from the hospital authorities as to the possible duration of his confinement and was informed that it was for an indeterminate term with a maximum period of detention of 30 years. He misconstrues this information to mean that the hospital authorities had sentenced him for 30 years. In fact, he was being told only what the statute provides, namely, that an order of commitment in such cases shall not specify a minimum period of detention but in no event shall a person be confined for a period of time greater than that provided by law for the crime of which he was convicted. The maximum time for which a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Horne
...sentence for the substantive offense. See State v. Blanford, Supra, 105 N.J.Super. at 59--60, 251 A.2d 138; State v. Schreffler, 63 N.J.Super. 148, 152, 164 A.2d 192 (App.Div.1960). As in Kunz, where the defendant challenges the accuracy or validity of the report's material factual or concl......
-
State v. Lee
...may be for differentiating in other contexts between a custodial commitment and a custodial sentence (Cf. State v. Schreffler, 63 N.J.Super. 148, 152, 164 A.2d 192 (App.Div.1960)), we find no basis for differentiating between them in the present context. Surely no member of this Court had a......
-
State v. Mickschutz
... ... or undesirable, and we are convinced that the Legislature intended to leave it to the discretion of the court whether to follow a recommendation of 6(a) probation. See also State v. Schreffler, 63 N.J.Super. 148, 150, 164 A.2d 192 (App.Div.1960) ... If that be so, defendant argues that here it was an abuse of the court's discretion to ignore the recommendation of the Center. We doubt whether this question may be raised in an application for post-conviction relief, ... ...
-
State v. Johns
...sentence for the substantive offense. See State v. Blanford, Supra, 105 N.J.Super. at 59--60, 251 A.2d 138; State v. Schreffler, 63 N.J.Super. 148, 152, 164 A.2d 192 (App.Div.1960). (at 377, 267 A.2d at Among those differences--see the itemization in State v. Blanford, supra, 105 N.J.Super.......