People v. Wood

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wood

24 A.D.2d 1041, 265 N.Y.S.2d 618, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2761

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 1041 (People v. Wood) 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. Wood, 24 A.D.2d 1041, 265 N.Y.S.2d 618, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2761 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum by the Court.

Defendant’s allegations with respect to his interrogation without counsel are insufficient to entitle him to a hearing upon his application in the nature of a writ of error co’rarn nobis, particularly so in the light of the subsequent proceedings in the action. (People v. Howard, 12 N Y 2d 65.) Neither do his papers indicate any facts respecting his confession and his subsequent plea of guilty to a reduced charge which would remove the case from the ambit of the rule applied in People v. Nicholson (11 N Y 2d 1067, cert. den. 371 U. S. 929). Likewise insufficient to require a hearing are his allegations in respect of the court’s choice of counsel (People v. Brabson, 9 N Y 2d 173,180-181, cert. den. 366 U. S. 930, 369 U. S. 879) and in respect of the supposed inadequacy of the representation afforded him (People v. Weires, 10 N Y 2d 1017, cert. den. 370 U. S. 954). Order affirmed. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

Memorandum by the Court.

Defendant’s allegations with respect to his interrogation without counsel are insufficient to entitle him to a hearing upon his application in the nature of a writ of error co’rarn nobis, particularly so in the light of the subsequent proceedings in the action. (People v. Howard, 12 N Y 2d 65.) Neither do his papers indicate any facts respecting his confession and his subsequent plea of guilty to a reduced charge which would remove the case from the ambit of the rule applied in People v. Nicholson (11 N Y 2d 1067, cert. den. 371 U. S. 929). Likewise insufficient to require a hearing are his allegations in respect of the court’s choice of counsel (People v. Brabson, 9 N Y 2d 173,180-181, cert. den. 366 U. S. 930, 369 U. S. 879) and in respect of the supposed inadequacy of the representation afforded him (People v. Weires, 10 N Y 2d 1017, cert. den. 370 U. S. 954). Order affirmed. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 1041, 265 N.Y.S.2d 618, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wood-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack