People v. De Groat

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. De Groat

13 A.D.2d 557, 211 N.Y.S.2d 746, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12175

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.D.2d 557 (People v. De Groat) 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. De Groat, 13 A.D.2d 557, 211 N.Y.S.2d 746, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12175 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Ulster County-Court denying the appellant’s application for a writ of error coram nobis. The appellant was convicted of the crime of burglary in the third degree for which he received a suspended sentence and was placed on probation. The contentions on which the appellant’s application is based are that his conviction was based solely on the testimony of an accomplice, that there was no evidence of a breaking and entry, that the People did not sustain their burden of proof and that he was prejudiced because he was tried for both burglary and unlawful entry. The questions which the appellant raises are questions which should be raised on a direct appeal from the conviction and there was, in fact, such an appeal from the appellant’s conviction in which these questions were considered and the conviction affirmed (5 A D 2d 927). Further, at that time the conviction for unlawful entry was reversed and the indictment for that crime dismissed. The appellant has therefore presented no valid grounds for the granting of a writ of error coram nobis and the court below correctly denied his application. Order unanimously affirmed.

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

Appeal from an order of the Ulster County-Court denying the appellant’s application for a writ of error coram nobis. The appellant was convicted of the crime of burglary in the third degree for which he received a suspended sentence and was placed on probation. The contentions on which the appellant’s application is based are that his conviction was based solely on the testimony of an accomplice, that there was no evidence of a breaking and entry, that the People did not sustain their burden of proof and that he was prejudiced because he was tried for both burglary and unlawful entry. The questions which the appellant raises are questions which should be raised on a direct appeal from the conviction and there was, in fact, such an appeal from the appellant’s conviction in which these questions were considered and the conviction affirmed (5 A D 2d 927). Further, at that time the conviction for unlawful entry was reversed and the indictment for that crime dismissed. The appellant has therefore presented no valid grounds for the granting of a writ of error coram nobis and the court below correctly denied his application. Order unanimously affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.2d 557, 211 N.Y.S.2d 746, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-de-groat-nyappdiv-1961.