People v. Spero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Spero

25 A.D.2d 882, 270 N.Y.S.2d 254, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4131

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

DecidedMay 23, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 25 A.D.2d 882 (People v. Spero) 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. Spero, 25 A.D.2d 882, 270 N.Y.S.2d 254, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4131 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

-In a coram nobis proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered September 16, 1965, which, without a hearing, denied his application to vacate a judgment of the former County Court, Kings County, rendered June 12, 1961, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the first degree, assault in the second degree and kidnapping, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence on the robbery count. The judgment was previously affirmed by this court (People v. Spero, 16 A D 2d 981) and leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied on October 4, 1962 by Desmond, Ch. J., of that court. Order affirmed. Defendant seeks to vacate his conviction on the ground that certain evidence introduced at the trial was obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure. Mapp v. Ohio (367 U. S. 643) was decided while the appeal from the judgment was pending. Defendant was precluded from invoking the doctrine of Mapp on appeal because he had failed to raise a constitutional objection to the introduction of the evidence in question at the trial. (People v. Friola, 11 N Y 2d 157.) He may not now resort to the remedy of coram nobis to apply Mapp retrospectively (People v. Muller, 11 N Y 2d 154; Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618).

Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill 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, entered September 16, 1965, which, without a hearing, denied his application to vacate a judgment of the former County Court, Kings County, rendered June 12, 1961, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the first degree, assault in the second degree and kidnapping, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence on the robbery count. The judgment was previously affirmed by this court (People v. Spero, 16 A D 2d 981) and leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied on October 4, 1962 by Desmond, Ch. J., of that court. Order affirmed. Defendant seeks to vacate his conviction on the ground that certain evidence introduced at the trial was obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure. Mapp v. Ohio (367 U. S. 643) was decided while the appeal from the judgment was pending. Defendant was precluded from invoking the doctrine of Mapp on appeal because he had failed to raise a constitutional objection to the introduction of the evidence in question at the trial. (People v. Friola, 11 N Y 2d 157.) He may not now resort to the remedy of coram nobis to apply Mapp retrospectively (People v. Muller, 11 N Y 2d 154; Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618).

Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 882, 270 N.Y.S.2d 254, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-spero-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack