People v. Wilder

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wilder

25 A.D.2d 889, 270 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4080

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

DecidedMay 31, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 889 (People v. Wilder) 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. Wilder, 25 A.D.2d 889, 270 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4080 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

-In two coram nobis proceedings, defendant appeals'from two orders of the County Court, Westchester County, entered June 24, 1964 and December 29, 1965, respectively, each of which, without a hearing, denied a respective application by him to vacate a judgment of said court, rendered August 9, 1961, convicting him of robbery and grand larceny (both in the first degree) and grand larceny and assault (both in the second degree), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence on the robbery count only. The judgment was affirmed (18 A D 2d 668). Order entered December 29, 1965 affirmed. Order entered June 24, 1964 reversed, on the law, and proceeding remitted to the County Court, Westchester County, for the purpose of holding a hearing on the issue presented. No questions of fact were considered. In our opinion, defendant’s assertion that codefendant Smith was promised leniency is markedly consistent with the events at the trial and at Smith’s sentencing. In addition, the minutes of Smith’s arraignment upon and plea of guilty to an unrelated indictment, at which some understanding might have been reached, cannot be located. In view of these facts and in view of the remarks made by the Judge upon the sentencing of Smith, we deem it necessary that a hearing be held to determine whether any promise of leniency had been made [890]*890to 'Smith to induce him to co-operate with the District Attorney in the prosecution of this defendant. The hearing should be limited to the issues of promise of leniency and the use of Smith’s testimony as to any such promise, in view of our affirmance of the order entered December 29, 1965. The allegations contained in the application which resulted in the order of December 29, 1965 were conelusory and lacked factual evidence to support them. A hearing is not required under such circumstances (People v. Fanning, 300 N. Y. 593; People v. Altruda, 5 N Y 2d 970).

Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

-In two coram nobis proceedings, defendant appeals'from two orders of the County Court, Westchester County, entered June 24, 1964 and December 29, 1965, respectively, each of which, without a hearing, denied a respective application by him to vacate a judgment of said court, rendered August 9, 1961, convicting him of robbery and grand larceny (both in the first degree) and grand larceny and assault (both in the second degree), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence on the robbery count only. The judgment was affirmed (18 A D 2d 668). Order entered December 29, 1965 affirmed. Order entered June 24, 1964 reversed, on the law, and proceeding remitted to the County Court, Westchester County, for the purpose of holding a hearing on the issue presented. No questions of fact were considered. In our opinion, defendant’s assertion that codefendant Smith was promised leniency is markedly consistent with the events at the trial and at Smith’s sentencing. In addition, the minutes of Smith’s arraignment upon and plea of guilty to an unrelated indictment, at which some understanding might have been reached, cannot be located. In view of these facts and in view of the remarks made by the Judge upon the sentencing of Smith, we deem it necessary that a hearing be held to determine whether any promise of leniency had been made [890]*890to 'Smith to induce him to co-operate with the District Attorney in the prosecution of this defendant. The hearing should be limited to the issues of promise of leniency and the use of Smith’s testimony as to any such promise, in view of our affirmance of the order entered December 29, 1965. The allegations contained in the application which resulted in the order of December 29, 1965 were conelusory and lacked factual evidence to support them. A hearing is not required under such circumstances (People v. Fanning, 300 N. Y. 593; People v. Altruda, 5 N Y 2d 970).

Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 889, 270 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4080, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wilder-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack