People v. Eichelsderfer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Eichelsderfer

38 A.D.2d 859, 331 N.Y.S.2d 346

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.2d 859 (People v. Eichelsderfer) 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. Eichelsderfer, 38 A.D.2d 859, 331 N.Y.S.2d 346 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In a coram nobis proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 3, 1970, which denied the application without a hearing. Order affirmed. The papers presented to the Criminal Term did not warrant a hearing (People v. Lynn, 28 N Y 2d 196). Further, the claim of excessive sentence, made by defendant on this appeal, was not made (much less documented) in the papers in [860]*860support of this proceeding. In any case, that claim is patently without merit in view of the substantially higher maximum sentence to which defendant was subject as a second felony offender (see former Penal Law [cf 1909], §§ 2127, 1941). Latham, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Gulotta and Christ, JJ., concur.

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

In a coram nobis proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 3, 1970, which denied the application without a hearing. Order affirmed. The papers presented to the Criminal Term did not warrant a hearing (People v. Lynn, 28 N Y 2d 196). Further, the claim of excessive sentence, made by defendant on this appeal, was not made (much less documented) in the papers in [860]*860support of this proceeding. In any case, that claim is patently without merit in view of the substantially higher maximum sentence to which defendant was subject as a second felony offender (see former Penal Law [cf 1909], §§ 2127, 1941). Latham, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Gulotta and Christ, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.2d 859, 331 N.Y.S.2d 346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-eichelsderfer-nyappdiv-1972.