People ex rel. Rosano v. Fay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Rosano v. Fay

6 A.D.2d 695, 174 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6029

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

DecidedMay 5, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 6 A.D.2d 695 (People ex rel. Rosano v. Fay) 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

People ex rel. Rosano v. Fay, 6 A.D.2d 695, 174 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6029 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order (designated in the notice of appeal as an order and judgment) dismissing a writ of habeas corpus and remanding appellant to custody. Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appellant attacked a 1928 judgment convicting him, on his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree on the ground that, when he appeared for judgment, he was not asked whether he had legal cause to show why judgment should not be pronounced against him (Code Crim. Pro., § 480). The documentary evidence submitted on the return of the writ, together with the presumption of regularity, shows that the question was asked. Appellant did not sustain the burden of proving that the question was not asked. Wenzel, Beldock, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., concurs in the result.

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

Appeal from an order (designated in the notice of appeal as an order and judgment) dismissing a writ of habeas corpus and remanding appellant to custody. Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appellant attacked a 1928 judgment convicting him, on his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree on the ground that, when he appeared for judgment, he was not asked whether he had legal cause to show why judgment should not be pronounced against him (Code Crim. Pro., § 480). The documentary evidence submitted on the return of the writ, together with the presumption of regularity, shows that the question was asked. Appellant did not sustain the burden of proving that the question was not asked. Wenzel, Beldock, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., concurs in the result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.2d 695, 174 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6029, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-rosano-v-fay-nyappdiv-1958.