People v. Wood

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

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

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).

24 A.D.2d 1041 (People v. Wood) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Brabson v. New York
366 U.S. 930 (Supreme Court, 1961)
Brabson v. New York
369 U.S. 879 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Weires v. New York
370 U.S. 954 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Nicholson v. New York
371 U.S. 929 (Supreme Court, 1962)