People ex rel. Wynn v. Follette

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Wynn v. Follette

30 A.D.2d 706, 291 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3668

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

DecidedJune 24, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 706 (People ex rel. Wynn v. Follette) 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. Wynn v. Follette, 30 A.D.2d 706, 291 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3668 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated January 5, 1968, which dismissed the writ of habeas corpus herein, affirmed, without costs. In view of the pendency of relator’s appeal from the denial of his coram nobis application, there was no reason of practicality and necessity to permit his attack on the judgment of conviction by habeas corpus (cf. People ex rel. Keitt v. McMann, 18 N Y 2d 257, 262; People ex rel. Garcia v. Warden, 28 A D 2d 682, Iv. to app. den. 20 N Y 2d 645; People ex rel. Blyden v. Denno, 28 A D 2d 683). Moreover, while it now appears to be well settled that statements made by an accused after arraignment and not in the presence of counsel [707]*707are inadmissible as evidence (People v. Meyer, 11 N Y 2d 162; People v. Graham, 20 A D 2d 949), that rule is not to be applied retroactively (cf. People v. Howard, 12 N Y 2d 65, 69; People v. Rivera, 16 N Y 2d 879; People v. De Renzzio, 19 N Y 2d 45; People v. Clayton, 28 A D 2d 543). Brennan, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated January 5, 1968, which dismissed the writ of habeas corpus herein, affirmed, without costs. In view of the pendency of relator’s appeal from the denial of his coram nobis application, there was no reason of practicality and necessity to permit his attack on the judgment of conviction by habeas corpus (cf. People ex rel. Keitt v. McMann, 18 N Y 2d 257, 262; People ex rel. Garcia v. Warden, 28 A D 2d 682, Iv. to app. den. 20 N Y 2d 645; People ex rel. Blyden v. Denno, 28 A D 2d 683). Moreover, while it now appears to be well settled that statements made by an accused after arraignment and not in the presence of counsel [707]*707are inadmissible as evidence (People v. Meyer, 11 N Y 2d 162; People v. Graham, 20 A D 2d 949), that rule is not to be applied retroactively (cf. People v. Howard, 12 N Y 2d 65, 69; People v. Rivera, 16 N Y 2d 879; People v. De Renzzio, 19 N Y 2d 45; People v. Clayton, 28 A D 2d 543). Brennan, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 706, 291 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-wynn-v-follette-nyappdiv-1968.