People v. Moesel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Moesel

284 A.D. 922, 134 N.Y.S.2d 567, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4063

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1954

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 284 A.D. 922 (People v. Moesel) 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. Moesel, 284 A.D. 922, 134 N.Y.S.2d 567, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4063 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Washington County Court which denied appellant a hearing in a coram nobis proceeding. Appellant challenges the validity of a conviction for forgery in the second degree, in the Washington County Court in 1915, on the ground that he was not advised of his right to counsel at all stages of the proceedings. The court records do not show that he was advised of his right to counsel, but there is a notation that he had counsel, not named, at the time of his original arraignment when he entered a plea of not guilty. Subsequently he changed his plea to guilty but the record does not show that he was then represented by counsel. At a still later date he appeared for sentence and at that time an attorney, W. Chase Young, Esq., addressed the court in his behalf. This attorney however has stated in two letters that he has no recollection of representing appellant at any time, particularly for the crime of forgery. Under these circumstances we do not think the record proof is so clear against appellant’s affirmative statement that he should be summarily denied a hearing. It seems to us the issue should be tried -{People V. Guariglia, 303 N. Y. 338; People v. Langan, 303 N. Y. 474). We express no opinion of course as to the merits of appellant’s contention. Order reversed and a hearing directed. Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon and Imrie, JJ., concur. Halpern, J., taking no part.

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

Appeal from an order of the Washington County Court which denied appellant a hearing in a coram nobis proceeding. Appellant challenges the validity of a conviction for forgery in the second degree, in the Washington County Court in 1915, on the ground that he was not advised of his right to counsel at all stages of the proceedings. The court records do not show that he was advised of his right to counsel, but there is a notation that he had counsel, not named, at the time of his original arraignment when he entered a plea of not guilty. Subsequently he changed his plea to guilty but the record does not show that he was then represented by counsel. At a still later date he appeared for sentence and at that time an attorney, W. Chase Young, Esq., addressed the court in his behalf. This attorney however has stated in two letters that he has no recollection of representing appellant at any time, particularly for the crime of forgery. Under these circumstances we do not think the record proof is so clear against appellant’s affirmative statement that he should be summarily denied a hearing. It seems to us the issue should be tried -{People V. Guariglia, 303 N. Y. 338; People v. Langan, 303 N. Y. 474). We express no opinion of course as to the merits of appellant’s contention. Order reversed and a hearing directed. Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon and Imrie, JJ., concur. Halpern, J., taking no part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D. 922, 134 N.Y.S.2d 567, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4063, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-moesel-nyappdiv-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack