For affirmance -- Chief Justice Vanderbilt, and Justices Heher, Oliphant, Wachenfeld, Burling, Jacobs and Brennan. For reversal -- None.
The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion per curiam in the court below.
On appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court, Appellate Division, where the following opinion was filed. "The information submitted to us is that on May 15, 1947 the defendant in the Court of Special Sessions of the County of Camden entered pleas of guilty to five accusations of crime which with the respective sentences imposed may be identified as follows: No. 45,290, robbery, 10 to 15 years; No. 45,305, robbery, 2 to 10 years to run consecutively to sentence on No. 45,290; No. 45,285, robbery, 2 to 10 years to run concurrently with sentence on No. 45,290; No. 45,306, carry weapons unlawfully, 1 to 3 years to run concurrently with sentence on No. 45,290; No. 45,286, larceny and receiving stolen goods, 1 to 3 years to run concurrently with sentence on No. 45,290.
In July 1951 upon the defendant's application a writ of habeas corpus issued out of the Mercer County Court to inquire concerning the legality of the defendant's imprisonment pursuant to which writ the defendant was afforded a hearing. A discharge of the writ eventuated for lack of credible proof of the allegations of the petition.
On August 4, 1953 a successive application for a writ of habeas corpus was addressed to the assignment judge of this court officiating in Camden County. The application was denied, as evidenced by a letter of that date signed by the judge. Vide, In re Kershner, 9 N.J. 471 (1952). Perhaps a formal order denying the issuance of the writ was entered, but of that we are uninformed. The denial of the application seems to be the action which we are asked by this appeal to review.
The assistant county prosecutor proposes that since the allegations of the second application are repetitious and of the same pattern as those of the first, the principle of res adjudicata sustains the denial of the second application. Not so. The right of a prisoner to make successive applications and to have each of his petitions judicially scrutinized has been affirmed. Prior determinations are not to be recognized as conclusive, but we have held that due recognition and regard should be accorded to the previous factual findings. State v. Fontano, 26 N.J. Super. 166 (App. Div. 1953).
In the present case, in addition to the previous determination of the inadequacy or absence of proof of the alleged supporting facts, the defendant's contentions that his imprisonment is illegal because of the failure to arraign him immediately and to assign counsel to represent him upon the acceptance of his pleas on May 15, 1947 have been decided adversely in State v. Cynkowski, 10 N.J. 571, 578, 579 (1952); State v. Gladstone, 17 N.J. Super. 467 (App. Div. 1952).