People v. Roder

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Roder

32 A.D.2d 641, 300 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4066

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

DecidedMay 5, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 32 A.D.2d 641 (People v. Roder) 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. Roder, 32 A.D.2d 641, 300 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4066 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

In a coram nobis proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Bongs County, dated August 8,1967, which denied the application, without a hearing. Order affirmed. In our opinion, under the facts and circumstances adduced, there is no adequate basis for a conclusion that the sentencing Justice abused his discretion in denying, after inquiry, but without’ a formal hearing, defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. We have considered defendant’s claims of innocence and an induced plea, as predicates for his motion to withdraw, and, on the facts and circumstances disclosed in the record, find these claims to be without merit. Moreover, since the guilty plea was entered during trial after the People had put in their prima facie case, we consider the potential prejudice to the People a significant factor in the over-all evaluation of defendant’s right to withdraw his plea. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a coram nobis proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Bongs County, dated August 8,1967, which denied the application, without a hearing. Order affirmed. In our opinion, under the facts and circumstances adduced, there is no adequate basis for a conclusion that the sentencing Justice abused his discretion in denying, after inquiry, but without’ a formal hearing, defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. We have considered defendant’s claims of innocence and an induced plea, as predicates for his motion to withdraw, and, on the facts and circumstances disclosed in the record, find these claims to be without merit. Moreover, since the guilty plea was entered during trial after the People had put in their prima facie case, we consider the potential prejudice to the People a significant factor in the over-all evaluation of defendant’s right to withdraw his plea. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 641, 300 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4066, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-roder-nyappdiv-1969.