People v. Ventimiglia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ventimiglia

29 A.D.2d 949, 290 N.Y.S.2d 708, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4341

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

DecidedApril 1, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 949 (People v. Ventimiglia) 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. Ventimiglia, 29 A.D.2d 949, 290 N.Y.S.2d 708, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4341 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered January 23, 1967, convicting defendant of criminally concealing and withholding stolen and wrongfully acquired property as a misdemeanor, upon his guilty plea, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and action remitted to the Criminal Term for the purpose of (a) holding [950]*950a hearing upon defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty and (b) making a determination thereon de nova. The findings of fact below are affirmed. Under the circumstances of the case the court below should hold a hearing and inquire fully into defendant’s reasons for desiring to withdraw his plea of guilty prior to sentencing (cf. People v. Burton, 28 A D 2d 686; People v. Borges, 28 A D 2d 735). We express no opinion as to the matter which may develop at the hearing. Hopkins, Benjamin and Martuscello, JJ., concur; Beldock, P. J., and Rabin, J., dissent and vote to affirm the judgment.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered January 23, 1967, convicting defendant of criminally concealing and withholding stolen and wrongfully acquired property as a misdemeanor, upon his guilty plea, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and action remitted to the Criminal Term for the purpose of (a) holding [950]*950a hearing upon defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty and (b) making a determination thereon de nova. The findings of fact below are affirmed. Under the circumstances of the case the court below should hold a hearing and inquire fully into defendant’s reasons for desiring to withdraw his plea of guilty prior to sentencing (cf. People v. Burton, 28 A D 2d 686; People v. Borges, 28 A D 2d 735). We express no opinion as to the matter which may develop at the hearing. Hopkins, Benjamin and Martuscello, JJ., concur; Beldock, P. J., and Rabin, J., dissent and vote to affirm the judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 949, 290 N.Y.S.2d 708, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ventimiglia-nyappdiv-1968.