Case ID: nys_157/html/0265-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "KNAPP, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(93 Misc. Rep. 468)
    PEOPLE v. SPARROW.
    (Ontario County Court.
    February 1, 1916.)
    1. Criminal Law <8=^950—Ornr Courts—Jurisdiction.
    As the Geneva city charter confers upon tho judge of the City Court the same power to impose sentences in criminal cases which a justice of the peace would have, the City Court has the same jurisdiction as a Court of Special Sessions, and after trial has been had, and a certificate of conviction and sentence prepared and filed, the court has no further jurisdiction over the matter, and cannot hear a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2345-2348; Dec. Dig. @=>950.]
    2. Criminal Law @=>906—Trial—Practice.
    Code Or. Proe. § 465, relating to applications for new trial on newly discovered evidence, being part of part 4 of the Code relating to proceedings in criminal actions prosecuted by indictment, has no application to a criminal case prosecuted without indictment in Justice Court or Court of Special Sessions.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. g 2129; Dec. Dig. @=>900.'I
    3. Criminal Law @=>90'—Justices of the Peace—Jurisdiction.
    Courts of limited and special jurisdiction, such as Justice Courts, should be strictly confined to the jurisdiction given them, and must in every instance show the grant of power.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 129-136; Dec. Dig. @=390.] <©=»For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
    Appeal from City Court of Geneva.
    Howard Sparrow was convicted of assault, and from an order of the City Court, denying his motion for new trial on newly discovered evidence, he appeals. Order affirmed.
    E. A. Griffith, of Geneva, for appellant.
    Horace Fitch, Dist. Atty., of Canandaigua, for the People.
   KNAPP, J.

On or about the 12th day of September, 1913, the defendant was arrested in the city of Geneva, N. Y., upon the charge of assault alleged to have been committed by him upon one Sadie Dubbs in the city of Geneva. On the 2d day of October, 1913, the defendant was convicted of the charge, and was sentenced to be imprisoned in the county jail of the county of Ontario for 11 months. On December 23, 1913, the defendant made a motion in the City Court of the City of Geneva for a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence, and on the 22d day of January, 1914, an order was entered denying the defendant’s motion, and from that order so made the defendant appeals to this court.

This appeal must be determined irrespective of the merits, and upon the ground that the City «Court of the City of Geneva had no authority to grant the order asked for whatever might have been the merits of the case. The City Court of the City of Geneva is a court of Jimited jurisdiction in criminal cases and has the same power to impose sentence which a justice of the peace of a town would have, and has tire same powers conferred upon Courts of Special Sessions. Section 102, Geneva City Charter. In other words, the City Court of the City of Geneva, so far as the questions here involved are concerned, is the same as a Court of Special Sessions, and has, so far as this question is involved, no greater powers than those conferred upon a Court of Special Sessions by the laws of this state. It has been repeatedly held that, where a criminal trial has been had and a certificate of conviction and sentence prepared and filed, a Court of Special Sessions is functus officio- and cannot be reopened in connection with that case. People ex rel. Cook v. Smith, 9 N. Y. Supp. 181, People v. Starks, 1 N. Y. Supp. 721, People v. Jewett, 69 Hun, 550, 23 N. Y. Supp. 942; Lattimore v. People, 10 How. Prac. 336.

I have been unable to find any provision of law that permits an application of this kind to be made. This motion was evidently made under section 465 of the «Code of Criminal Procedure, but it will be noticed that that section is a part of part 4 of the Code of- Criminal Procedure, which relates only to proceedings in criminal actions prosecuted by indictment. It was held in the case of People v. Bates, 38 Hun, 181, that section 135 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is a part of part 4 above referred to, only applies to crimes that might have been prosecuted by indictment and did not apply to Courts of Special Sessions. In the case of People v. Johnston, 187 N. Y. 319, 79 N. E. 1018, it is expressly held that part 4 Of the Code of Criminal Procedure, embracing sections 133 to 699, relates to “Proceedings in Criminal Actions Prosecuted by Indictment,” and has no bearing upon actions prosecuted without an indictment.

Courts of special and limited jurisdiction, such as are courts of a justice of the peace and district courts, are confined in their jurisdiction strictly to the authority given them. They take nothing by implication, but must, in every instance, show that the power has been expressly granted them. 11 Cyc. page 771; Ahern v. National Steamship Co., 3 Daly, 399, on page 403; Loomis v. Bowers, 22 How. Prac. 361.

I have been unable to find any authority expressly given to courts -of limited jurisdiction that would permit the granting of this order. The defendant’s remedy, it seems to me, if he has been unjustly convicted, is upon an application to the executive of the state for relief, and not to the courts.

An order may be entered affirming the order appealed from. 
      
       Reported in full in the New York Supplement; reported as a memorandum decision without opinion in 55 Hun, 604.
     
      
       Reported in full in the New York Supplement; reported as a memorandum decision without opinion in 49 Hun, 606.