People v. St. John

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. St. John

281 A.D. 1061, 121 N.Y.S.2d 441

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

DecidedMay 20, 1953

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 281 A.D. 1061 (People v. St. John) 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. St. John, 281 A.D. 1061, 121 N.Y.S.2d 441 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Essex County, dismissing a writ of error coram nobis. A writ of coram nobis was directed to the question whether defendant on arraignment after indictment for a felony had been advised by the court of his right to counsel. An issue of fact arose and this court on a previous appeal ordered a trial of that issue rather than a summary disposition on papers. When the hearing was held defendant asked the court to assign counsel and this the court declined to do. The court after hearing the proof dismissed the writ. The “ time of arraignment ” is the point at which the court “must assign counsel” under the statutory mandate (Code Grim. Pro., § 308), but there can be little doubt that this point is regarded as merely the initial one, and that it is the purpose of the statute to see to it that the accused has the aid of counsel, if he wants that aid, throughout the criminal action. The basic statutory right is fixed in general terms in section 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as entitling the accused to defend “with counsel”, and while the phrase “aid of counsel in every stage of the proceedings ” in section 188 refers to the preliminary examination before a magistrate, still the traditional feeling in this matter and the spirit of the law is that the right of counsel is to be preserved carefully throughout the criminal action. The power of assignment of counsel has always been regarded as inherent {People v. Price, 262 N, Y. 410* 412) and it is the “duty” of the court to select “ counsel fit and competent ”. {People v. Thompson, 205 App. Div. 581.) Since the proceeding in coram nobis is a part of the original criminal action the court should have assigned counsel at appellant’s request where a triable issue of fact existed. We do not reach the merits of the application. Order reversed, on the law and facts, and application remitted to the Special Term for' assignment of counsel for further proceedings. Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Imrie, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Essex County, dismissing a writ of error coram nobis. A writ of coram nobis was directed to the question whether defendant on arraignment after indictment for a felony had been advised by the court of his right to counsel. An issue of fact arose and this court on a previous appeal ordered a trial of that issue rather than a summary disposition on papers. When the hearing was held defendant asked the court to assign counsel and this the court declined to do. The court after hearing the proof dismissed the writ. The “ time of arraignment ” is the point at which the court “must assign counsel” under the statutory mandate (Code Grim. Pro., § 308), but there can be little doubt that this point is regarded as merely the initial one, and that it is the purpose of the statute to see to it that the accused has the aid of counsel, if he wants that aid, throughout the criminal action. The basic statutory right is fixed in general terms in section 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as entitling the accused to defend “with counsel”, and while the phrase “aid of counsel in every stage of the proceedings ” in section 188 refers to the preliminary examination before a magistrate, still the traditional feeling in this matter and the spirit of the law is that the right of counsel is to be preserved carefully throughout the criminal action. The power of assignment of counsel has always been regarded as inherent {People v. Price, 262 N, Y. 410* 412) and it is the “duty” of the court to select “ counsel fit and competent ”. {People v. Thompson, 205 App. Div. 581.) Since the proceeding in coram nobis is a part of the original criminal action the court should have assigned counsel at appellant’s request where a triable issue of fact existed. We do not reach the merits of the application. Order reversed, on the law and facts, and application remitted to the Special Term for' assignment of counsel for further proceedings. Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Imrie, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D. 1061, 121 N.Y.S.2d 441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-st-john-nyappdiv-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack