People v. Justiniano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Justiniano

29 A.D.2d 569, 286 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2634

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 29 A.D.2d 569 (People v. Justiniano) 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. Justiniano, 29 A.D.2d 569, 286 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2634 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

In a coram nobis proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August 15, 1966, which, without a hearing, denied his application to vacate a judgment of the former County Court, Kings 'County, rendered May 24, 1960, convicting him of attempted grand larceny in the second degree, on his guilty plea, and imposing an indefinite penitentiary sentence. Order affirmed. Defendant’s attack on the judgment is based on his contention that the facts elicited from him by the court at the time he pleaded guilty did not spell out the crime to which he [570]*570pleaded guilty and that in such case the court could not accept the guilty plea and impose sentence. The alleged error, if in fact it exists, would be one that appears on the face of the record. Hence, coram nobis is not an availably remedy (People v. Sadness, 300 N. Y. 69, 74; People v. McGuire, 13 A D 2d 794). In any event, we have examined the record and it is our opinion that on the merits defendant has not shown that the alleged error occurred or that he has a right to the relief he requests or that the interests of justice warrant the grant of such relief. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Benjamin and Munder, 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 August 15, 1966, which, without a hearing, denied his application to vacate a judgment of the former County Court, Kings 'County, rendered May 24, 1960, convicting him of attempted grand larceny in the second degree, on his guilty plea, and imposing an indefinite penitentiary sentence. Order affirmed. Defendant’s attack on the judgment is based on his contention that the facts elicited from him by the court at the time he pleaded guilty did not spell out the crime to which he [570]*570pleaded guilty and that in such case the court could not accept the guilty plea and impose sentence. The alleged error, if in fact it exists, would be one that appears on the face of the record. Hence, coram nobis is not an availably remedy (People v. Sadness, 300 N. Y. 69, 74; People v. McGuire, 13 A D 2d 794). In any event, we have examined the record and it is our opinion that on the merits defendant has not shown that the alleged error occurred or that he has a right to the relief he requests or that the interests of justice warrant the grant of such relief. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 569, 286 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-justiniano-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack