People ex rel. Dawson v. Smith, 23 N.Y.2d 33 (1968)
r
r
When a writ of habeas corpus is directed to the warden of a state prison, seeking resentencing rather than outright discharge, it must be made returnable in the county where the prison is located, absent an available judge there.
r
r
Summary
r
This case concerns the proper venue for a habeas corpus proceeding initiated by a state prison inmate. Dawson, an inmate at Green Haven State Prison in Dutchess County, sought a writ of habeas corpus in New York County, arguing he was not asked at his 1936 sentencing why judgment should not be pronounced. The District Attorney sought to prohibit the New York County Supreme Court from hearing the writ, arguing it should be heard in Dutchess County where Dawson was incarcerated. The Court of Appeals held that under CPLR 7004(c), the writ must be made returnable in the county of detention, regardless of whether the inmate seeks discharge or resentencing, to avoid imposing undue burdens on prison authorities.
r
r
Facts
r
r
The relator, Dawson, was serving a 25-to-40-year sentence at Green Haven State Prison in Dutchess County.r
His conviction stemmed from felony charges in the Supreme Court, New York County, in 1936.r
Dawson filed a writ of habeas corpus in New York County, alleging that at his original sentencing in 1936, he was not asked why judgment should not be pronounced against him, as required by Section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.r
r
r
Procedural History
r
r
Dawson filed the writ in the Supreme Court, New York County.r
The District Attorney moved to amend the writ to make it returnable in Dutchess County, where the prison was located; this motion was denied.r
The District Attorney then initiated an Article 78 proceeding seeking prohibition to restrain the New York County Supreme Court from holding a hearing on the writ and to prevent the warden from producing Dawson in New York County.r
The Appellate Division denied the application for prohibition.r
The Court of Appeals granted permission to appeal.r
r
r
Issue(s)
r
r
Whether, under CPLR 7004(c), a writ of habeas corpus directed to a state prison warden may be made returnable and heard before a Supreme Court Justice in a county other than where the relator is detained when the relator seeks resentencing rather than outright discharge.r
Whether prohibition is the proper remedy to prevent a court from hearing a habeas corpus writ in an improper venue.r
r
r
Holding
r
r
No, because CPLR 7004(c) requires that writs directed to state prison wardens, whether seeking discharge or resentencing, must be made returnable in the county of detention, unless no judge is available there. r
Yes, because prohibition is the proper remedy when a court threatens to act without or in excess of its power, including exercising jurisdiction in an improper venue.r
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
r
The court reasoned that CPLR 7004(c) distinguishes between writs concerning inmates of state institutions and other cases. The phrase “A writ to secure the discharge of a person from a state institution” is a generic description of habeas corpus in terms of its function.r
The legislative intent behind CPLR 7004(c) was to alleviate the administrative, security, and financial burdens on state prison wardens of having to transport inmates to distant counties for habeas corpus hearings. The court stated, “The Legislature has sought to relieve wardens of State prisons from having to comply with writs of habeas corpus by producing inmates out of the county of detention, under guard, and often at great distances and great expense.”r
Differentiating between