coram nobis hearing in New York

2018What is evident from the majority's lengthy discussion of writs of error coram nobis (majority op at 306-309) is that, as we held in cases from People v Hill ( 8 NY2d 935 [1960]) to People v Montgomery to People v Syville , a writ of error coram nobis is available to vindicate the constitutional rights of a defendant, regardless of any conflicting terms of a statute purporting to govern the jurisdiction of the courts.

2013The Fourth Department remitted for a new coram nobis hearing in People v Hooper ( 22 AD2d 1006 [4th Dept 1964]), and reversed in Clover-East Assoc. v Bachler ( 23 AD2d 620 [4th Dept 1965]), where the order appealed from denied an application to strike the case from the jury calendar and direct a nonjury trial.

2013The Fourth Department remitted for a new coram nobis hearing in People v Hooper ( 22 AD2d 1006 [4th Dept 1964]), and reversed in Clover-East Assoc. v Bachler ( 23 AD2d 620 [4th Dept 1965]), where the order appealed from denied an application to strike the case from the jury calendar and direct a nonjury trial.

2013In People v Nenni ( 261 AD2d 900 [4th Dept 1999]), the judge who heard the defendant’s omnibus motion granted his request for a suppression hearing, but the successor judge later denied suppression without a hearing.

1986For purposes of this petition, the underlying factual statement is taken from the opinion of the Court of Appeals in People v Culhane ( 33 NY2d 90, 95-96 ): "On September 13, 1968, three prisoners, Culhane, Bower-man, and McGivern were being taken by auto from the Auburn State Prison to White Plains in connection with a coram nobis hearing on behalf of Culhane.

1972(People v. Scott, 10 N Y 2d 380; People v. Withridge, 27 NY 2d 713 .)

1966There is denial of effective representation of counsel only where representation given is so patently lacking in competence or adequacy that it becomes the duty of the court to be aware of it and correct it.” (People v. Tomaselli, 7 N Y 2d 350, 356; People v. Brown, 7 N Y 2d 359, cert. den. 365 U. S. 821 .) Strong language by counsel without undue pressure by the court or District Attorney is not the proper basis for a coram nobis hearing.

1966(People v. Guariglia, 303 N. Y. 338 .) If in the instant ease, the court were to rely exclusively upon the return made by the Justice of the Peace, subscribed by him and stating that the defendant was advised as to his right to counsel, the remaining question as to whether the defendant, due to his age and lack of experience, waived this right intelligently, should nevertheless be examined on a coram nobis hearing.

1962Of course, the burden of proof at this hearing was on Romeo (People v. Cooper, 307 N. Y. 253, 260 ; People v. Oddo, 283 App. Div. 497 ; People v. Gencarelli, 15 Misc 2d 45 , affd. 9 A D 2d 614, affd. 8 N Y 2d 906, cert. denied 364 U. S. 875 ).

1962Essentially, in these matters, the controlling factor should be whether the alleged false testimony “ may have had an effect on the outcome of the trial ” (Napue v. Illinois, 360 U. S. 264, 272 ).

1962Of course, the burden of proof at this hearing was on Romeo (People v. Cooper, 307 N. Y. 253, 260 ; People v. Oddo, 283 App. Div. 497 ; People v. Gencarelli, 15 Misc 2d 45 , affd. 9 A D 2d 614, affd. 8 N Y 2d 906, cert. denied 364 U. S. 875 ).

1962Of course, the burden of proof at this hearing was on Romeo (People v. Cooper, 307 N. Y. 253, 260 ; People v. Oddo, 283 App. Div. 497 ; People v. Gencarelli, 15 Misc 2d 45 , affd. 9 A D 2d 614, affd. 8 N Y 2d 906, cert. denied 364 U. S. 875 ).

1962Of course, the burden of proof at this hearing was on Romeo (People v. Cooper, 307 N. Y. 253, 260 ; People v. Oddo, 283 App. Div. 497 ; People v. Gencarelli, 15 Misc 2d 45 , affd. 9 A D 2d 614, affd. 8 N Y 2d 906, cert. denied 364 U. S. 875 ).

1961Regarding the contention of the right to counsel of one’s own choosing, this court is aware of the law that where “ a defendant appears by his own attorney, there is no power in the court to assign counsel at any stage of the proceedings.” (People v. Price, 262 N. Y. 410, 412 .) The court records do not disclose the reason for the assignment of Mr. Feldman, and the defendant testified that this was done because Mr. Halle was not present.

1960We are all familiar with the settled general rule that, when a coram nobis petition alleges facts which if true would entitle petitioner to relief, there must be a trial of those allegations unless their falsity is conclusively demonstrated by unquestionable documentary proof (People v. Richetti, 302 N. Y. 290, 296 , supra, and other eases cited in People v. Picciotti, 4 N Y 2d 340, 344, 345, supra).

1952Thus, the Appellate Division, reaching the same result as had been reached in similar cases in other States, as well as in the County Court of Queens County, recently affirmed the refusal of this court (Goldstein, J.) to grant a coram nobis hearing in a case where the defendant claimed that his plea of guilty had been induced by his counsel misinforming him about the sentence he would receive (People v. Turman, 279 App. Div. 983 [1st Dept., 1952], without opinion, motion for leave to appeal denied 280 App. Div. 916 ; People v. Stryzewski, 19 Misc 2d 598 [1951] ; Putnam v. People, 408 Ill. 582

1952Thus, the Appellate Division, reaching the same result as had been reached in similar cases in other States, as well as in the County Court of Queens County, recently affirmed the refusal of this court (Goldstein, J.) to grant a coram nobis hearing in a case where the defendant claimed that his plea of guilty had been induced by his counsel misinforming him about the sentence he would receive (People v. Turman, 279 App. Div. 983 [1st Dept., 1952], without opinion, motion for leave to appeal denied 280 App. Div. 916 ; People v. Stryzewski, 19 Misc 2d 598 [1951] ; Putnam v. People, 408 Ill. 582

1952Thus, the Appellate Division, reaching the same result as had been reached in similar cases in other States, as well as in the County Court of Queens County, recently affirmed the refusal of this court (Goldstein, J.) to grant a coram nobis hearing in a case where the defendant claimed that his plea of guilty had been induced by his counsel misinforming him about the sentence he would receive (People v. Turman, 279 App. Div. 983 [1st Dept., 1952], without opinion, motion for leave to appeal denied 280 App. Div. 916 ; People v. Stryzewski, 19 Misc 2d 598 [1951] ; Putnam v. People, 408 Ill. 582

1952Thus, the Appellate Division, reaching the same result as had been reached in similar cases in other States, as well as in the County Court of Queens County, recently affirmed the refusal of this court (Goldstein, J.) to grant a coram nobis hearing in a case where the defendant claimed that his plea of guilty had been induced by his counsel misinforming him about the sentence he would receive (People v. Turman, 279 App. Div. 983 [1st Dept., 1952], without opinion, motion for leave to appeal denied 280 App. Div. 916 ; People v. Stryzewski, 19 Misc 2d 598 [1951] ; Putnam v. People, 408 Ill. 582

1952Thus, the Appellate Division, reaching the same result as had been reached in similar cases in other States, as well as in the County Court of Queens County, recently affirmed the refusal of this court (Goldstein, J.) to grant a coram nobis hearing in a case where the defendant claimed that his plea of guilty had been induced by his counsel misinforming him about the sentence he would receive (People v. Turman, 279 App. Div. 983 [1st Dept., 1952], without opinion, motion for leave to appeal denied 280 App. Div. 916 ; People v. Stryzewski, 19 Misc 2d 598 [1951] ; Putnam v. People, 408 Ill. 582