People v. Warnbrand

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Warnbrand

278 A.D. 956, 105 N.Y.S.2d 59, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5361

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

DecidedJune 11, 1951

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 278 A.D. 956 (People v. Warnbrand) 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. Warnbrand, 278 A.D. 956, 105 N.Y.S.2d 59, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5361 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant appeals from a decision and order of the County Court, Kings County, denying a motion in the nature of coram nobis, whereby he sought to set aside a judgment of conviction rendered and sentence imposed after his plea of guilty to attempted arson in the third degree. Order affirmed. Appeal from decision dismissed. The record of the proceedings at the time of the withdrawal of the plea of not guilty and the entry of the plea of guilty, as well as at the time of sentence, discloses that defendant had agreed to and did personally enter the plea of guilty. Nothing in his affidavit or in the record suggests that fraud was practiced by the Trial Judge, the defendant’s attorney, or the assistant district attorney. The motion was, therefore, properly denied. (People V. Sadness, 300 N. Y. 69.) Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur.

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

Defendant appeals from a decision and order of the County Court, Kings County, denying a motion in the nature of coram nobis, whereby he sought to set aside a judgment of conviction rendered and sentence imposed after his plea of guilty to attempted arson in the third degree. Order affirmed. Appeal from decision dismissed. The record of the proceedings at the time of the withdrawal of the plea of not guilty and the entry of the plea of guilty, as well as at the time of sentence, discloses that defendant had agreed to and did personally enter the plea of guilty. Nothing in his affidavit or in the record suggests that fraud was practiced by the Trial Judge, the defendant’s attorney, or the assistant district attorney. The motion was, therefore, properly denied. (People V. Sadness, 300 N. Y. 69.) Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D. 956, 105 N.Y.S.2d 59, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-warnbrand-nyappdiv-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack