People v. Weintraub

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Weintraub

41 A.D.2d 660, 340 N.Y.S.2d 675, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5170

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

DecidedFebruary 13, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 41 A.D.2d 660 (People v. Weintraub) 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. Weintraub, 41 A.D.2d 660, 340 N.Y.S.2d 675, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5170 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals by defendant (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered February 18, 1972, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, upon a plea of guilty, and sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term of not more than three years, to be served concurrently with another sentence defendant was then serving, and (2) by permission from an order of the same court, dated March 15, 1972, which denied, without a hearing, defendant’s application in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis to vacate said judgment. Judgment affirmed, without prejudice to the claims asserted in the coram nobis application. No opinion. Order reversed, on the law, and application granted to the extent of granting a hearing, to be held at the Criminal Term before a Justice other than the one who presided at the guilty pleading and the sentencing. Defendant was convicted on his ,plea of guilty on January 24, 1972 and sentenced on February 18,1972. On or about February 25, 1972 he brought this coram nobis proceeding, alleging that he was induced to plead guilty by a promise of the District Attorney and the court, communicated to him by his attorney, that he would receive a maximum sentence of one year, to run concurrently with a sentence then being served; In fact, he was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of zero to three years, to run concurrently with the other sentence. Defendant’s allegations of an unkept promise with respect to sentence entitle him to a hearing, unless they are refuted conclusively by the record or are incredible as a matter of law (People v. Bagley, 23 N Y 2d 814; CPL 440.10, 440.30). The record does not conclusively refute defendant’s claims. Nor can it be said that they are incredible as a matter of law. Rabin, P. J'., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello and Christ, JJ., concur.

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

Appeals by defendant (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered February 18, 1972, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, upon a plea of guilty, and sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term of not more than three years, to be served concurrently with another sentence defendant was then serving, and (2) by permission from an order of the same court, dated March 15, 1972, which denied, without a hearing, defendant’s application in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis to vacate said judgment. Judgment affirmed, without prejudice to the claims asserted in the coram nobis application. No opinion. Order reversed, on the law, and application granted to the extent of granting a hearing, to be held at the Criminal Term before a Justice other than the one who presided at the guilty pleading and the sentencing. Defendant was convicted on his ,plea of guilty on January 24, 1972 and sentenced on February 18,1972. On or about February 25, 1972 he brought this coram nobis proceeding, alleging that he was induced to plead guilty by a promise of the District Attorney and the court, communicated to him by his attorney, that he would receive a maximum sentence of one year, to run concurrently with a sentence then being served; In fact, he was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of zero to three years, to run concurrently with the other sentence. Defendant’s allegations of an unkept promise with respect to sentence entitle him to a hearing, unless they are refuted conclusively by the record or are incredible as a matter of law (People v. Bagley, 23 N Y 2d 814; CPL 440.10, 440.30). The record does not conclusively refute defendant’s claims. Nor can it be said that they are incredible as a matter of law. Rabin, P. J'., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello and Christ, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 660, 340 N.Y.S.2d 675, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-weintraub-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack