People v. Lester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lester

10 A.D.2d 971, 202 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10013

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

DecidedMay 16, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 971 (People v. Lester) 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. Lester, 10 A.D.2d 971, 202 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10013 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion by defendant for leave to dispense with printing and to prosecute on the original or typewritten papers his appeal from an order, dated March 8, 1960, denying, without a hearing, his coram nobis application. Motion denied. The judgment of conviction was rendered on February 8, 1946, finding the defendant guilty, after trial, of manslaughter in the first degree and sentencing him to a term of 5 to 10 years. Defendant contends that perjured testimony was used by the District Attorney on the trial and before the Grand Jury. Such contention is not ground for vacating the judgment on a coram nobis application, especially since defendant concedes that, at the request of both the Assistant District Attorney and defense counsel, the perjured testimony was stricken from the record. There was no appeal from the judgment of conviction. Defendant also contends that his counsel, who was retained by him and not assigned by the count, was incompetent. However, no showing whatever is made that the judgment might properly be set aside on a coram nobis application because of the incompetence of counsel (see, e.g., People v. Brown, 7 N Y 2d 359; People v. Tomaselli, 7 N Y 2d 350; People v. Lee, 4 A D 2d 770, afld. 4 N Y 2d 843). Absent an indication that counsel, even if assigned by the court, was unfit to defend the accused or that the representation was such as to make the trial a farce and a mockery of justice, a judgment of conviction may not be vacated on a claim that counsel was incompetent (People v. Brown, supra; People v. Lee, supra). After an examination of the papers submitted on this motion and of the original papers submitted on the application, it is our opinion that no showing has been made that there might be merit in the appeal. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

Motion by defendant for leave to dispense with printing and to prosecute on the original or typewritten papers his appeal from an order, dated March 8, 1960, denying, without a hearing, his coram nobis application. Motion denied. The judgment of conviction was rendered on February 8, 1946, finding the defendant guilty, after trial, of manslaughter in the first degree and sentencing him to a term of 5 to 10 years. Defendant contends that perjured testimony was used by the District Attorney on the trial and before the Grand Jury. Such contention is not ground for vacating the judgment on a coram nobis application, especially since defendant concedes that, at the request of both the Assistant District Attorney and defense counsel, the perjured testimony was stricken from the record. There was no appeal from the judgment of conviction. Defendant also contends that his counsel, who was retained by him and not assigned by the count, was incompetent. However, no showing whatever is made that the judgment might properly be set aside on a coram nobis application because of the incompetence of counsel (see, e.g., People v. Brown, 7 N Y 2d 359; People v. Tomaselli, 7 N Y 2d 350; People v. Lee, 4 A D 2d 770, afld. 4 N Y 2d 843). Absent an indication that counsel, even if assigned by the court, was unfit to defend the accused or that the representation was such as to make the trial a farce and a mockery of justice, a judgment of conviction may not be vacated on a claim that counsel was incompetent (People v. Brown, supra; People v. Lee, supra). After an examination of the papers submitted on this motion and of the original papers submitted on the application, it is our opinion that no showing has been made that there might be merit in the appeal. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 971, 202 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10013, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lester-nyappdiv-1960.