People v. Velez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Velez

23 A.D.2d 505, 256 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5003

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

DecidedJanuary 25, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 505 (People v. Velez) 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. Velez, 23 A.D.2d 505, 256 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5003 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

In a eorcm nobis proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 10, 1964, which denied after a hearing his application to vacate a judgment of said court, rendered May 10, 1963 on his plea of guilty, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and imposing sentence. Order affirmed. In our opinion, the record establishes conclusively that the plea of guilty was not induced by threats or coercion but was, rather, defendant’s voluntary act and reasoned choice (cf. People v. Boceo, 22 A D 2d 706). The record indicates, also, that defendant’s rights were scrupulously protected by the trial court and that defendant was adequately and effectively represented by counsel. Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a eorcm nobis proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 10, 1964, which denied after a hearing his application to vacate a judgment of said court, rendered May 10, 1963 on his plea of guilty, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and imposing sentence. Order affirmed. In our opinion, the record establishes conclusively that the plea of guilty was not induced by threats or coercion but was, rather, defendant’s voluntary act and reasoned choice (cf. People v. Boceo, 22 A D 2d 706). The record indicates, also, that defendant’s rights were scrupulously protected by the trial court and that defendant was adequately and effectively represented by counsel. Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 505, 256 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5003, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-velez-nyappdiv-1965.