Case Name: THE PEOPLE v. CHARLES BOEHM
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1917-01
Citations: 35 N.Y. Crim. 386
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE PEOPLE v. CHARLES BOEHM.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Criminal Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 386–393

Head Matter:
SUPREME COURT — APPELLATE DIVISION — FOURTH DEPARTMENT.
January, I9I7.
THE PEOPLE v. CHARLES BOEHM.
(176 App. Div. 401.)
Sentence to imprisonment —Suspension of execution of judgment.
Where the defendant in a criminal action has been sentenced to' a definite period of imprisonment in a penitentiary, the court has no power subsequently to suspend the execution of that part of the judgment which provides for the imprisonment.
Under the circumstances the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Penal Law relating to placing criminals on probation have no application.
Lambert and Foote, JJ., dissented, with memorandum.
Appeal by the defendant, Charles Boehm, from a judgment of the County Court of Onondaga county, rendered against him on the Yth day of April, 1916, revoking the suspension of execution of that part of a judgment entered in said court on the 28th day of' November, 1914, which provides for the imprisonment of the defendant in the Onondaga County penitentiary for a term of one year, and ordering the said judgment to be executed.
Ray B. Smith, for the appellant.
George W. Standen, for the respondent.
See Note, Vols. 13, p. 421; 11, p. 487.

Opinion:
Kruse, P. J.:
I find no authority in either the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Law, or in any other statute, which authorizes a court to indefinitely suspend the execution of the sentence after it has been pronounced, in a case like this. The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Penal Law relating to placing on probation a criminal have no application to this case. Concededly, the defendant was not put upon probation. It is said that courts have inherent power under the common law to suspend the execution of judgment after it has been pronounced. Even so (although the Federal Supreme Court has recently held to the contrary, Ex parte United States, 242 U. S. 27), the order should be upheld, because there is no limitation of time by statute within which that may be "done. If the suspension was illegal, there is all the more reason for setting it aside and enforcing the judgment.
In either view I think the order was proper. The order revoking the suspension of execution of judgment and ordering its execution should be affirmed.
All concurred, except Foote and Lambebt, JJ., who dissented in a memorandum by Lambebt, J.