Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Mungioli

Decided: December 9, 1943.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR,
v.
ALBERT MUNGIOLI, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR



On error to the Camden County Court of Quarter Sessions.

For the plaintiff in error, Walter S. Keown.

For the defendant in error, Gene R. Mariano.

Before Brogan, Chief Justice, and Justices Bodine and Colie.

Bodine

The opinion of the court was delivered by

BODINE, J. Plaintiff in error was charged under three indictments with having on three different days committed the crime of assault and battery upon the person of his divorced wife. The indictments were filed November 27th, 1942. He was arraigned December 4th, 1942, and entered a plea of not guilty. On December 9th the plea was retracted and a plea of non vult contendere was duly entered, the court imposing sentence in the following manner, according to the return: "that the said defendant, Albert Mungioli, be confined in State Prison, at Trenton, New Jersey, at hard labor for a term of one to two years to run consecutively on the said three charges, Jail sentences to be suspended and placed upon Probation."

On March 25th, 1943, the plaintiff in error was brought before the court charged with several violations of his probation. On that day, the "Court ordered the Clerk to correct and amend the sentence imposed on December 9th, 1942, so that it would appear as follows: 'One to two years State Prison to run consecutively and suspended on good behaviour and placed on probation for five years.'" The plaintiff in error was then sent to the State Prison for examination as to his mental condition. On May 20th, 1943, the plaintiff in error was ordered returned from State Prison for sentence on June 29th, 1943. He was sentenced: "to State Prison,

for a term of One to two years on the first count, and the suspension to remain on the others." When the court spoke of count it undoubtedly meant indictments.

The pertinent portions of chapter 199 of the Revised Statutes are as follows: "the courts of this state having jurisdiction over criminal or quasi -criminal actions shall have power, after conviction or after a plea of guilty or non vult for any crime * * * to suspend the imposition or execution of sentence, and also to place the defendant on probation under the supervision of the chief probation officer of the county, for a period of not less than one year nor more than five years." R.S. 2:199-1.

R.S. 2:199-2 provides: "The court shall determine and may, at any time, modify the conditions of probation, and may, among others, include any of the following: That the probationer shall * * * report to the probation officer as directed by the court or probation officer * * *."

R.S. 2:199-4 provides: "At any time during the probation period the court may issue a warrant and cause the probationer to be arrested for violating any of the conditions of his probation, or any probation officer, police officer, or other officer with power of arrest upon the request of the chief probation officer, may arrest the probationer without a warrant; and a commitment by such probation officer setting forth that the probationer has, in his judgment, violated the conditions of his probation shall be sufficient warrant for the detention of such probationer in the county jail * * *. Such probation officer shall forthwith report such arrest or detention to the court * * *. Thereupon the court, after summary hearing, may continue or it may revoke the probation and the suspension of sentence, and may cause the sentence imposed to be executed or impose any sentence which might originally have been imposed."

On March 25th, 1943, the plaintiff in error was brought before the court for a violation of his probation. It appeared that he had not reported to the probation officer as directed by him and that he had been arrested on complaint of his former wife charging that he had ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.