People v. Attonito

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Attonito

276 N.E.2d 228, 29 N.Y.2d 732, 326 N.Y.S.2d 391, 1971 N.Y. LEXIS 1009

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 21, 1971

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 276 N.E.2d 228 (People v. Attonito) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Attonito, 276 N.E.2d 228, 29 N.Y.2d 732, 326 N.Y.S.2d 391, 1971 N.Y. LEXIS 1009 (N.Y. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed (see People v. Ronald W. [Anonymous], 24 N Y 2d 732). In this case the court may not reach the propriety of a defendant’s questioning in the absence of counsel. The record does not establish an assignment of counsel in the immediately pending revocation proceeding prior to the questioning by the probation officer. Outside the record submitted there is suggestion that an attorney was assigned solely for the limited and temporary purpose of the arraignment. No notice of appearance was filed and there is no indication in or outside the official record submitted that an attorney agreed to serve or was accepted by the client beyond the initial arraignment.

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scieeppi, Bergan, Breitel, Jasen and Gibson.

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

Order affirmed (see People v. Ronald W. [Anonymous], 24 N Y 2d 732). In this case the court may not reach the propriety of a defendant’s questioning in the absence of counsel. The record does not establish an assignment of counsel in the immediately pending revocation proceeding prior to the questioning by the probation officer. Outside the record submitted there is suggestion that an attorney was assigned solely for the limited and temporary purpose of the arraignment. No notice of appearance was filed and there is no indication in or outside the official record submitted that an attorney agreed to serve or was accepted by the client beyond the initial arraignment.

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scieeppi, Bergan, Breitel, Jasen and Gibson.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 N.E.2d 228, 29 N.Y.2d 732, 326 N.Y.S.2d 391, 1971 N.Y. LEXIS 1009, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-attonito-ny-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack