State v. Cynkowski

7 Citing cases

  1. State v. Sutphin

    142 N.M. 191 (N.M. 2007)   Cited 94 times
    Holding that a self-defense instruction is not appropriate where the victim threatened the defendant with a pipe and the defendant responded by repeatedly striking the victim with the pipe even after the victim lost consciousness

    While Morgan is on point, it appears there is a split in those jurisdictions that have decided this issue. Compare Roach v. State, 27 Kan.App.2d 561, 7 P.3d 319, 323 (2000), and Ex parte Owens, 88 Okla.Crim. 346, 203 P.2d 447, 449 (App. 1949), with Jackson v. Jones, 254 Ga. 127, 327 S.E.2d 206, 208 (1985), and State v. Cynkowski 19 N.J.Super. 243, 88 A.2d 220, 223-24 (App.Div. 1952). {15} We expressly join those jurisdictions that have declined to apply laches to habeas proceedings.

  2. Williams v. State

    259 Ark. 667 (Ark. 1976)   Cited 26 times
    In Williams v. State, 259 Ark. 667, 535 S.W.2d 842, we held that the trial judge had abused his discretion by overruling an objection made to the prosecuting attorney's misstatements and his assertions not supported by evidence and argument of matters outside the record.

    Cranford v. State, 156 Ark. 39, 245 S.W. 189. It is a fundamental right in the American system antedating any constitution and an essential of due process of law. Reynolds v. United States, 238 F.2d 460 (9 Cir., 1956); Shargaa v. State, 102 5.2d 814 (Fla., 1958), cert. den. 358 U.S. 873, 79 S.Ct. 114, 3 L.Ed.2d 104; State v. Cynkowski, 19 N.J. Super. 243, 88 A.2d 220 (1952); aff'd. 10 N.J. 571, 92 A.2d 782 (1952); People v. Morris, 260 Cal.App.2d 848, 67 Cal.Rptr. 566 (1968); People v. Weinstein, 35 Ill.2d 467, 220 N.E.2d 432 (1966); People v. Di Manno, 15 Misc. 644, 182 N.Y.S.2d 937 (1959).

  3. State v. Cynkowski

    10 N.J. 571 (N.J. 1952)   Cited 41 times
    In State v. Cynkowski, 10 N.J. 571, 576 (1952), it is stated that "Where a convicted defendant files a petition for writ of habeas corpus the court may, * * * immediately issue the writ for hearing thereon, or dismiss the petition because of its insufficiency on its face, or call for formal answer by the State."

    On the defendant's appeal the Appellate Division in a well considered opinion rejected the County Court's view that the defendant was thus barred but concluded that under the evidence presented, the contentions lacked merit. See State v.Cynkowski, 19 N.J. Super. 243 ( App. Div. 1952). We have also concluded that the contentions lacked merit but shall, nevertheless, consider the effect of the defendant's long delay in attacking his convictions and sentences.

  4. State v. Ultra Motors

    40 N.J. Super. 54 (N.J. Super. 1956)   Cited 1 times

    It is part of his defensive armor. In the case of State v. Cynkowski, 19 N.J. Super. 243 ( App. Div. 1952), affirmed 10 N.J. 571 (1952), it was held: "The presumption of innocence is no slight matter but is one of the great principles embedded in our system of justice and is an essential of due process of law."

  5. State v. La Battaglia

    30 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 1954)   Cited 7 times

    The defendant's proceeding by way of habeas corpus is a collateral attack on the judgment of conviction and is not maintainable. State v. Cynkowski, 19 N.J. Super. 243 ( App. Div. 1952); affirmed 10 N.J. 571 (1952); In re Janiec, 137 N.J.L. 94 ( Sup. Ct. 1948). In a very illuminating and instructive opinion by Chancellor Walker in the case of In re Davis, supra, it was held that:

  6. In re Hodge

    24 N.J. Super. 564 (App. Div. 1953)   Cited 3 times

    There is no limitation of time within which an application for a writ of habeas corpus must be sought, and the mere fact that this petitioner failed to solicit the writ more promptly was not of itself a justifiable ground for the denial of its issuance. Vide, State v. Cynkowski, 19 N.J. Super. 243 ( App. Div. 1952), affirmed 10 N.J. 571 (1952). The petitioner alleged, inter alia, that he was in custody at the time of the trial and involuntarily absent from the courtroom when the jury rendered against him the verdict of guilty of the crime of robbery.

  7. In re Robilotto

    24 N.J. Super. 209 (App. Div. 1953)   Cited 9 times

    The office of the writ of habeas corpus is to secure the release of the applicant from custody. State v. Cynkowski, 19 N.J. Super. 243, 249 ( App. Div. 1952). Having accomplished its purpose to the advantage of the prisoner, it has spent itself.