People v. Wurzler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wurzler

280 A.D. 1020, 116 N.Y.S.2d 756, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4582

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

DecidedNovember 17, 1952

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 280 A.D. 1020 (People v. Wurzler) 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. Wurzler, 280 A.D. 1020, 116 N.Y.S.2d 756, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4582 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Broome County which denied defendant's motion in the nature of a coram nobis to set aside a judgment of conviction for grand larceny, first degree, entered upon a plea of guilty. Defendant was sentenced as a second offender by reason of a previous conviction for the crime of robbery, second degree. Defendant contends on this appeal, that the testimony presented to the Grand Jury which indicted him “was known by the District Attorney to be perjured”. There is nothing to support this charge except the bare allegation of defendant. This is not sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact long after sentence had been pronounced. Defendant appealed to the court before, alleging that the evidence before the Grand Jury was insufficient (278 App. Div. 608). Order affirmed. Foster, P. J., Brewster, Bergan and Coon, JJ., concur; Heffernan, J., taking no part.

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

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Broome County which denied defendant's motion in the nature of a coram nobis to set aside a judgment of conviction for grand larceny, first degree, entered upon a plea of guilty. Defendant was sentenced as a second offender by reason of a previous conviction for the crime of robbery, second degree. Defendant contends on this appeal, that the testimony presented to the Grand Jury which indicted him “was known by the District Attorney to be perjured”. There is nothing to support this charge except the bare allegation of defendant. This is not sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact long after sentence had been pronounced. Defendant appealed to the court before, alleging that the evidence before the Grand Jury was insufficient (278 App. Div. 608). Order affirmed. Foster, P. J., Brewster, Bergan and Coon, JJ., concur; Heffernan, J., taking no part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D. 1020, 116 N.Y.S.2d 756, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wurzler-nyappdiv-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack