People v. Mercuri

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mercuri

37 A.D.2d 755, 323 N.Y.S.2d 374, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3590

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

DecidedJuly 1, 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.2d 755 (People v. Mercuri) 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. Mercuri, 37 A.D.2d 755, 323 N.Y.S.2d 374, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3590 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed and matter remitted to Oneida County Court for a hearing in accordance with the following memorandum: Upon the appeal from the judgment of conviction (27 A D 2d 705) the record and defendant’s claim of his inability to comprehend the nature and impact of the proceedings, were not in such form as to permit the court to give full consideration thereto. Under the broad powers of this court and based on the peculiar facts of this ease, petitioner’s allegations in this coram nobis application that his plea of guilty was not voluntarily made because of his inability to understand the English language, coupled with the alleged coercive insistence of his counsel that he enter such a plea, are sufficient to raise a triable issue as to the voluntariness of his plea. This issue should be resolved at a hearing (People v. Rodriguez, 34 A D 2d 731). (Appeal from order of Oneida County Court, denying, without a hearing, motion to vacate judgment of conviction for murder, second degree, rendered January 28, 1966.) Present—Goldman, ‘P. J., Gabrielli, Moule, Cardamone and Henry, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed and matter remitted to Oneida County Court for a hearing in accordance with the following memorandum: Upon the appeal from the judgment of conviction (27 A D 2d 705) the record and defendant’s claim of his inability to comprehend the nature and impact of the proceedings, were not in such form as to permit the court to give full consideration thereto. Under the broad powers of this court and based on the peculiar facts of this ease, petitioner’s allegations in this coram nobis application that his plea of guilty was not voluntarily made because of his inability to understand the English language, coupled with the alleged coercive insistence of his counsel that he enter such a plea, are sufficient to raise a triable issue as to the voluntariness of his plea. This issue should be resolved at a hearing (People v. Rodriguez, 34 A D 2d 731). (Appeal from order of Oneida County Court, denying, without a hearing, motion to vacate judgment of conviction for murder, second degree, rendered January 28, 1966.) Present—Goldman, ‘P. J., Gabrielli, Moule, Cardamone and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.2d 755, 323 N.Y.S.2d 374, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mercuri-nyappdiv-1971.