People v. Rozzell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rozzell

32 A.D.2d 674, 301 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3900

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

DecidedMay 26, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 32 A.D.2d 674 (People v. Rozzell) 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. Rozzell, 32 A.D.2d 674, 301 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3900 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 21,1968 upon resentence, affirmed. The order of said court dated November 24, 1967 was reviewed on this appeal. In our opinion, the Criminal Term did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s application to withdraw his guilty plea. On the record before it and upon the testimony at the hearing, the court was warranted in finding (1) that there was no substance to appellant’s [675]*675belated protestations of innocence, he having knowingly and voluntarily admitted his guilt, and (2) that his guilty plea was not the product of coercion or misunderstanding. We find no merit to appellant’s claims as respects the alleged violation of the attorney-client privilege. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 21,1968 upon resentence, affirmed. The order of said court dated November 24, 1967 was reviewed on this appeal. In our opinion, the Criminal Term did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s application to withdraw his guilty plea. On the record before it and upon the testimony at the hearing, the court was warranted in finding (1) that there was no substance to appellant’s [675]*675belated protestations of innocence, he having knowingly and voluntarily admitted his guilt, and (2) that his guilty plea was not the product of coercion or misunderstanding. We find no merit to appellant’s claims as respects the alleged violation of the attorney-client privilege. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 674, 301 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rozzell-nyappdiv-1969.