Court Opinion

ID: 9765903
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:24:17.728533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:16.608476
License: Public Domain

*434Heher, J.
(concurring in affirmance). Eor the reasons stated in the concurring opinion in State v. Monahan, 15 N. J. 34 (1954), I hold the view that the appellant is not restrained of his liberty under the judgment of conviction of a court of competént jurisdiction; and on that ground I would affirm the judgment dismissing the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
On that hypothesis, the then Juvenile Court Act, B. S. 1937, 9:18-1 et seq., was not effective to deprive the old Court of Oyer and Terminer of jurisdiction of the criminal offense charged in the indictment under which the sentence of imprisonment was imposed; and the later substantive legislative changes in the Juvenile Act, serving to supply the constitutional deficiencies, would not on well-settled principles arrest the execution of the sentence.
Heher, J., concurs in result.
For affirmance — Chief Justice Vanderbilt, and Justices Heher, Oliphant, Burling, Jacobs and Brennan — 6.
For reversal — Justice Wachenfeld — 1.