People v. Kenneth A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kenneth A.

36 A.D.2d 859, 321 N.Y.S.2d 747, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4214

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

DecidedApril 26, 1971

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 36 A.D.2d 859 (People v. Kenneth A.) 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. Kenneth A., 36 A.D.2d 859, 321 N.Y.S.2d 747, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4214 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

[861]*861Grulotta, J., dissents and votes to affirm the order, with the following memorandum with which Christ, J., concurs: In our opinion, under the peculiar facts of this ease, defendant’s execution of a waiver of the right to a jury trial did not deprive him of the right to raise the issue thereon in this proceeding. Since defendant was compelled to execute the waiver as a prerequisite to being afforded youthful offender treatment, his actions did not constitute an “ ‘ intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege ’ ” (Fay v. Noia, 372 U. S. 391, 439). Nor do we believe that defendant is barred from raising the issue by virtue of the fact that he failed to argue the point upon his direct appeal from the judgment of conviction. Even under such circumstances, post-conviction relief is available to challenge the deprivation of a fundamental constitutional right (People ex rel Keitt v. McMann, 18 N Y 2d 257). We note in this regard that the instant proceeding was instituted only three months after our affirmance of the judgment.

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

[861]*861Grulotta, J., dissents and votes to affirm the order, with the following memorandum with which Christ, J., concurs: In our opinion, under the peculiar facts of this ease, defendant’s execution of a waiver of the right to a jury trial did not deprive him of the right to raise the issue thereon in this proceeding. Since defendant was compelled to execute the waiver as a prerequisite to being afforded youthful offender treatment, his actions did not constitute an “ ‘ intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege ’ ” (Fay v. Noia, 372 U. S. 391, 439). Nor do we believe that defendant is barred from raising the issue by virtue of the fact that he failed to argue the point upon his direct appeal from the judgment of conviction. Even under such circumstances, post-conviction relief is available to challenge the deprivation of a fundamental constitutional right (People ex rel Keitt v. McMann, 18 N Y 2d 257). We note in this regard that the instant proceeding was instituted only three months after our affirmance of the judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 A.D.2d 859, 321 N.Y.S.2d 747, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kenneth-a-nyappdiv-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack