People v. Peck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Peck

24 A.D.2d 772, 263 N.Y.S.2d 622, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3188

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 22, 1965·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Memorandum by the Court.

Although the District Attorney might have been better advised to have disqualified himself and have thus avoided even the appearance of any impropriety, there is no indication of any illegal or improper act on his part, and, after a hearing, the County Court so found. All the facts were known to the defendant and to the able and experienced lawyer who represented him and it is clear that each considered that the plea entered was to defendant’s advantage and chose not to pursue any of the remedies then available. Under the circumstances coram nobis is not available. (See People v. Brown, 7 N Y 2d 359, mot. for rearg. den. 12 N Y 2d 1022, cert. den. 365 U. S. 821; People v. Moore, 284 App. Div. 925.) Neither may that remedy be employed to examine the sufficiency of the evidence before the Grand Jury. (People v. Darling, 16 A D 2d 994, cert. den. 372 U. S. 924, 377 U. S. 1005.) Order dismissing application in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis affirmed. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

Memorandum by the Court.

Although the District Attorney might have been better advised to have disqualified himself and have thus avoided even the appearance of any impropriety, there is no indication of any illegal or improper act on his part, and, after a hearing, the County Court so found. All the facts were known to the defendant and to the able and experienced lawyer who represented him and it is clear that each considered that the plea entered was to defendant’s advantage and chose not to pursue any of the remedies then available. Under the circumstances coram nobis is not available. (See People v. Brown, 7 N Y 2d 359, mot. for rearg. den. 12 N Y 2d 1022, cert. den. 365 U. S. 821; People v. Moore, 284 App. Div. 925.) Neither may that remedy be employed to examine the sufficiency of the evidence before the Grand Jury. (People v. Darling, 16 A D 2d 994, cert. den. 372 U. S. 924, 377 U. S. 1005.) Order dismissing application in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis affirmed. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

People v. Peck, 24 A.D.2d 772, 263 N.Y.S.2d 622, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3188 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

24 A.D.2d 772 (People v. Peck) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related