People v. Coger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Coger

277 A.D.2d 786

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

DecidedMay 15, 1950

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 786 (People v. Coger) 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. Coger, 277 A.D.2d 786 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the' County Court, Queens County, denying a motion coram nobis, to vacate a judgment of that court which convicted appellant, on his plea of guilty, of the crimes of burglary, third degree, and petit larceny, affirmed. The bald assertion by appellant, convicted in 1928, that he was not advised as to his constitutional rights, first advanced more than eighteen years after his conviction, when the stenographic transcripts of the proceedings upon his arraignment and sentence were no longer available, is insufficient to rebut the presumption of regularity attending such judgment, particularly in view of the proof submitted that it was the invariable custom of the County Judge then presiding to advise defendants as to their right to be represented by counsel. (Cf. People v. Bichetti, 276 App. Div. 1091, and Foster v. Illinois, 332 TJ. S. 134.) Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur.

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

Order of the' County Court, Queens County, denying a motion coram nobis, to vacate a judgment of that court which convicted appellant, on his plea of guilty, of the crimes of burglary, third degree, and petit larceny, affirmed. The bald assertion by appellant, convicted in 1928, that he was not advised as to his constitutional rights, first advanced more than eighteen years after his conviction, when the stenographic transcripts of the proceedings upon his arraignment and sentence were no longer available, is insufficient to rebut the presumption of regularity attending such judgment, particularly in view of the proof submitted that it was the invariable custom of the County Judge then presiding to advise defendants as to their right to be represented by counsel. (Cf. People v. Bichetti, 276 App. Div. 1091, and Foster v. Illinois, 332 TJ. S. 134.) Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-coger-nyappdiv-1950.