Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charles Boehm, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1917-01-16
Citations: 176 A.D. 401
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charles Boehm, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 176
Pages: 401–407

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charles Boehm, Appellant.
Fourth Department,
January 16, 1917.
Crime — 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 np 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 7tli 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.

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 Lambert, JJ., who dissented in a memorandum by Lambert, J.