People v. Brantle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Brantle

13 A.D.2d 839, 216 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10564

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

DecidedMay 31, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.D.2d 839 (People v. Brantle) 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 v. Brantle, 13 A.D.2d 839, 216 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10564 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from an order of the County Court, Nassau County, dated April 7, 1959, denying, without a hearing, his coram nobis application to vacate a judgment of said court made on June 12, 1947, on his plea of guilty, finding him to be a youthful offender and committing him to the Reception Center at Elmira, New York, for classification and confinement pursuant to article 3-A of the Correction Law. Order reversed on the law and the facts and application remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for such further proceedings as may be necessary and not inconsistent herewith. The proof submitted discloses that on the arraignment, when defendant was 16 years of age, the court Clerk told him that he had a right to counsel, and then asked him: “Can you get one or do you want to proceed without one?”; and that the Clerk neither asked him whether he wanted the court to furnish him with counsel, nor informed him that it would do so upon his request. The proffer of the aid of counsel should be made in clear and unequivocal terms (People v. Marincic, 2 N Y 2d 181; People v. Cline, 10 A D 2d 904; People v. Hinsch, 3 A D 2d 915; People v. Marra, 1 A D 2d 545). Under the circumstances here, a hearing should be held to determine • whether defendant was properly informed of his right to counsel (Code Crim.- Pro., §§ 8, 308). Nolan, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur. •

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

Appeal by defendant from an order of the County Court, Nassau County, dated April 7, 1959, denying, without a hearing, his coram nobis application to vacate a judgment of said court made on June 12, 1947, on his plea of guilty, finding him to be a youthful offender and committing him to the Reception Center at Elmira, New York, for classification and confinement pursuant to article 3-A of the Correction Law. Order reversed on the law and the facts and application remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for such further proceedings as may be necessary and not inconsistent herewith. The proof submitted discloses that on the arraignment, when defendant was 16 years of age, the court Clerk told him that he had a right to counsel, and then asked him: “Can you get one or do you want to proceed without one?”; and that the Clerk neither asked him whether he wanted the court to furnish him with counsel, nor informed him that it would do so upon his request. The proffer of the aid of counsel should be made in clear and unequivocal terms (People v. Marincic, 2 N Y 2d 181; People v. Cline, 10 A D 2d 904; People v. Hinsch, 3 A D 2d 915; People v. Marra, 1 A D 2d 545). Under the circumstances here, a hearing should be held to determine • whether defendant was properly informed of his right to counsel (Code Crim.- Pro., §§ 8, 308). Nolan, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur. •

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.2d 839, 216 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brantle-nyappdiv-1961.