People v. Santana

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Santana

250 N.E.2d 725, 25 N.Y.2d 827, 303 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1969 N.Y. LEXIS 1163

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 1, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 250 N.E.2d 725 (People v. Santana) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Santana, 250 N.E.2d 725, 25 N.Y.2d 827, 303 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1969 N.Y. LEXIS 1163 (N.Y. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. The order should be reversed and proceedings remanded for a hearing on the issue whether the pretrial publicity was so extensive as to preclude the right to a fair trial and was the dominant or exclusive reason for defendant’s plea of guilty.

The widespread intensive emotional publicity about a juvenile gang killing with trial pressed upon defendant while the flood of publicity was at the crest raises an issue of fact whether defendant was circumstantially compelled to plead guilty or face the death penalty. In order to prevail, however, defendant may not rest upon his own state of mind or that of counsel but on the objective facts and the inferences which may be drawn from them. Since it is not clear that defendant could have raised the issues as to change of venue and denial of a continuance by direct appeal after his plea of guilty (compare People v. Chirieleison, 3 N Y 2d. 170, with People v. Habel, [829]*82925 A D 2d 182, affd. 18 N Y 2d 148), he may now raise the issue in postconviction procedure (see People ex rel. Rohrlich v. Follette, 20 N Y 2d 297, 302; People v. Sepos, 16 N Y 2d 662).

Chief Judge Full and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Breitel and Jasen concur.

Order reversed and case remitted to Supreme Court, Bronx County, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.

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

Memorandum. The order should be reversed and proceedings remanded for a hearing on the issue whether the pretrial publicity was so extensive as to preclude the right to a fair trial and was the dominant or exclusive reason for defendant’s plea of guilty.

The widespread intensive emotional publicity about a juvenile gang killing with trial pressed upon defendant while the flood of publicity was at the crest raises an issue of fact whether defendant was circumstantially compelled to plead guilty or face the death penalty. In order to prevail, however, defendant may not rest upon his own state of mind or that of counsel but on the objective facts and the inferences which may be drawn from them. Since it is not clear that defendant could have raised the issues as to change of venue and denial of a continuance by direct appeal after his plea of guilty (compare People v. Chirieleison, 3 N Y 2d. 170, with People v. Habel, [829]*82925 A D 2d 182, affd. 18 N Y 2d 148), he may now raise the issue in postconviction procedure (see People ex rel. Rohrlich v. Follette, 20 N Y 2d 297, 302; People v. Sepos, 16 N Y 2d 662).

Chief Judge Full and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Breitel and Jasen concur.

Order reversed and case remitted to Supreme Court, Bronx County, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 N.E.2d 725, 25 N.Y.2d 827, 303 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1969 N.Y. LEXIS 1163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-santana-ny-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack