People v. Hebert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hebert

19 A.D.2d 563, 239 N.Y.S.2d 813, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3812

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

DecidedMay 7, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 563 (People v. Hebert) 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. Hebert, 19 A.D.2d 563, 239 N.Y.S.2d 813, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3812 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the County Court, Clinton County which denied a writ of error coram nobis. The application for this writ of coram nobis was made October 11, 1960. The papers purport to show that defendant’s counsel represented that promises of leniency were made by the sentencing Judge before defendant pleaded guilty. This is not enough to warrant a hearing. The brief filed by appellant in this court states that he personally had been promised by the District Attorney a shorter sentence if he made restitution and pleaded guilty. The record before us does not sustain this assertion in the brief. Nowhere do we find any affidavit by defendant that the District Attorney made such a promise or statement to him personally. Order unanimously affirmed, without prejudice to a further application to the County Court if appellant is so advised. Present — Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the County Court, Clinton County which denied a writ of error coram nobis. The application for this writ of coram nobis was made October 11, 1960. The papers purport to show that defendant’s counsel represented that promises of leniency were made by the sentencing Judge before defendant pleaded guilty. This is not enough to warrant a hearing. The brief filed by appellant in this court states that he personally had been promised by the District Attorney a shorter sentence if he made restitution and pleaded guilty. The record before us does not sustain this assertion in the brief. Nowhere do we find any affidavit by defendant that the District Attorney made such a promise or statement to him personally. Order unanimously affirmed, without prejudice to a further application to the County Court if appellant is so advised. Present — Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 563, 239 N.Y.S.2d 813, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3812, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hebert-nyappdiv-1963.