From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People ex Rel. Lehman v. Hunt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 16, 1938
255 App. Div. 931 (N.Y. App. Div. 1938)

Opinion

November 16, 1938.

Present — Sears, P.J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Dowling, JJ.


Order affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Relator, upon his plea of guilty, was convicted of a felony, and sentenced as a first offender, to a term of not less than two nor more than four years in a State prison. The court suspended the execution of the sentence and placed relator on probation during good behavior. After about two and one-half years relator was brought before the court, charged with misconduct, violative of the terms of his probation, and resentenced to serve not less than two nor more than four years. Relator claims (quoting from his brief) that he was "sentenced * * * to two years probation," and that, having served that sentence, he could not be sentenced again for the same crime. That claim is untenable. Relator's probation was not a sentence but a relief from the operation of a sentence. When, by bad behavior, he forfeited the indulgence given to him, it was proper for the court to resentence him. (Code Crim. Proc. § 470-a.) All concur. (The order dismisses a writ of habeas corpus and remands relator into custody.)


Summaries of

People ex Rel. Lehman v. Hunt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 16, 1938
255 App. Div. 931 (N.Y. App. Div. 1938)
Case details for

People ex Rel. Lehman v. Hunt

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. HARRY LEHMAN, Appellant, v…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Nov 16, 1938

Citations

255 App. Div. 931 (N.Y. App. Div. 1938)

Citing Cases

Shahinian v. Langlois

However, his basic contention is unsound. He bases it on the proposition that probation is a sentence, which…