People v. Rodriguez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rodriguez

37 A.D.2d 962, 327 N.Y.S.2d 310, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3106

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

DecidedNovember 1, 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.2d 962 (People v. Rodriguez) 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. Rodriguez, 37 A.D.2d 962, 327 N.Y.S.2d 310, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3106 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

In a coram nobis proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the 'Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 17, 1970, which denied his application without a hearing. Order affirmed. The sole claim properly before us on this appeal is the question of the adequacy of defendant’s assigned counsel (People v. Silverman, 3 N Y 2d 200). However, we find no merit as to that in this 'ease (cf. People v. Tomaselli, 7 N Y 2d 350; People v. Brown, 7 N Y 2d 359). Defendant’s claims with respect to the withdrawal of his guilty plea, even if justified, and we believe they are without merit, were all available on his appeal from the judgment of conviction and are not properly the subject of coram nobis relief (People v. Washington, 33 A D 2d 699; People v. Brown, 13 N Y 2d 201; People v. Howard, 12 N Y 2d 65; People v. Shapiro, 3 N Y 2d 203; People v. Sullivan, 3 N Y 2d 196). Munder, Acting P. J., Latham, Shapiro, Christ and Benjamin, 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, Kings County, dated June 17, 1970, which denied his application without a hearing. Order affirmed. The sole claim properly before us on this appeal is the question of the adequacy of defendant’s assigned counsel (People v. Silverman, 3 N Y 2d 200). However, we find no merit as to that in this 'ease (cf. People v. Tomaselli, 7 N Y 2d 350; People v. Brown, 7 N Y 2d 359). Defendant’s claims with respect to the withdrawal of his guilty plea, even if justified, and we believe they are without merit, were all available on his appeal from the judgment of conviction and are not properly the subject of coram nobis relief (People v. Washington, 33 A D 2d 699; People v. Brown, 13 N Y 2d 201; People v. Howard, 12 N Y 2d 65; People v. Shapiro, 3 N Y 2d 203; People v. Sullivan, 3 N Y 2d 196). Munder, Acting P. J., Latham, Shapiro, Christ and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.2d 962, 327 N.Y.S.2d 310, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rodriguez-nyappdiv-1971.