People v. Elliott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Elliott

24 A.D.2d 1039, 265 N.Y.S.2d 620, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2757

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 1039 (People v. Elliott) 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. Elliott, 24 A.D.2d 1039, 265 N.Y.S.2d 620, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2757 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum by the Court.

Defendant appeals from an order of the County Court of Chemung County dated January 14, 1965 denying, after a hearing, his motion for a writ of error coram nobis. The petition alleges that his constitutional rights were violated upon bis arraignment on October 9, 1941 pursuant to an indictment charging him with the crime of sodomy in that he was not advised of his right to counsel as provided in section 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The clerk’s minutes recite that defendant was “informed of his rights by the court, waived counsel and entered a plea of ‘guilty’.” Defendant contends that the rights which he waived are not defined in the minutes and that his recollection of what transpired upon arraignment was that he was not asked if he desired the aid of counsel. On this record we perceive no basis which would justify our [1040]*1040disturbing the court’s finding that defendant’s testimony did not overcome the presumption of regularity which attended the proceeding. Order affirmed. Herlihy, J. P., Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

Memorandum by the Court.

Defendant appeals from an order of the County Court of Chemung County dated January 14, 1965 denying, after a hearing, his motion for a writ of error coram nobis. The petition alleges that his constitutional rights were violated upon bis arraignment on October 9, 1941 pursuant to an indictment charging him with the crime of sodomy in that he was not advised of his right to counsel as provided in section 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The clerk’s minutes recite that defendant was “informed of his rights by the court, waived counsel and entered a plea of ‘guilty’.” Defendant contends that the rights which he waived are not defined in the minutes and that his recollection of what transpired upon arraignment was that he was not asked if he desired the aid of counsel. On this record we perceive no basis which would justify our [1040]*1040disturbing the court’s finding that defendant’s testimony did not overcome the presumption of regularity which attended the proceeding. Order affirmed. Herlihy, J. P., Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 1039, 265 N.Y.S.2d 620, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-elliott-nyappdiv-1965.