In re David B.P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re David B.P.

57 A.D.2d 1077, 395 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12393

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 27, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 57 A.D.2d 1077 (In re David B.P.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re David B.P., 57 A.D.2d 1077, 395 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12393 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, on the law and matter remitted to Erie County Family Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: The petition herein charged this 13-year-old juvenile with conduct which, if done by an adult, would constitute robbery in the first degree. On appearance in Family Court his Law Guardian waived a reading of the petition and entered an admission to the content thereof. The only inquiry made by the court of the juvenile related to where he went to school, what grade he was in, and the number and age relationship of his brothers and sisters. Since an admission of this nature is equivalent to a plea of guilty to a criminal charge in a criminal case (cf. Matter of D. [Daniel], 27 NY2d 90, 97, app dsmd 403 US 926), the Family Court should require that such admissions of guilt be entered by the juvenile and not by the Law Guardian alone. It appears that the juvenile was capable of speaking for himself and it cannot be said on this record that what amounted to a plea of guilty was knowingly and intelligently entered by him (see Matter of Robin J., 47 AD2d 818). We have considered the other issues raised on this appeal and we find them to be without merit. (Appeal from order of Erie County Family Court — juvenile delinquent.) Present — Moule, J. P., Simons, Dillon, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order unanimously reversed, on the law and matter remitted to Erie County Family Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: The petition herein charged this 13-year-old juvenile with conduct which, if done by an adult, would constitute robbery in the first degree. On appearance in Family Court his Law Guardian waived a reading of the petition and entered an admission to the content thereof. The only inquiry made by the court of the juvenile related to where he went to school, what grade he was in, and the number and age relationship of his brothers and sisters. Since an admission of this nature is equivalent to a plea of guilty to a criminal charge in a criminal case (cf. Matter of D. [Daniel], 27 NY2d 90, 97, app dsmd 403 US 926), the Family Court should require that such admissions of guilt be entered by the juvenile and not by the Law Guardian alone. It appears that the juvenile was capable of speaking for himself and it cannot be said on this record that what amounted to a plea of guilty was knowingly and intelligently entered by him (see Matter of Robin J., 47 AD2d 818). We have considered the other issues raised on this appeal and we find them to be without merit. (Appeal from order of Erie County Family Court — juvenile delinquent.) Present — Moule, J. P., Simons, Dillon, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 1077, 395 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-david-bp-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack