22 A.D.2d 754, People v. Wright

Citation:22 A.D.2d 754, 253 N.Y.S.2d 653
Party Name:People v. Wright
Case Date:October 29, 1964
Court:New York Supreme Court Appelate Division, Fourth Department
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 754

22 A.D.2d 754

253 N.Y.S.2d 653

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.

Lawrence William WRIGHT, Appellant.

Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

October 29, 1964.

[253 N.Y.S.2d 654] Lawrence William Wright, in pro. per.

John C. Little, Jr., Rochester, for respondent (Nicholas P. Varlan, Rochester, of counsel).

Before BASTOW, J. P., and GOLDMAN, HENRY, NOONAN, and DEL VECCHIO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM.

It is regrettable, and difficult to understand why, the District Attorney neither submitted a brief nor appeared for argument on this appeal from a conviction after trial on a serious felony charge. It is the duty of every District Attorney to conduct all prosecutions for crimes or offenses cognizable by the courts of the county for which he shall have been elected (County Law, § 700, subd. 1). We feel this requires that he file a brief stating his position concerning an appeal taken by a defendant and to appear for argument unless both sides agree to submit. See Matter of Lewis v. Carter, 220 N.Y. 8, 115 N.E. 19. This apparent lack of concern is incomprehensible.

This case is clearly distinguishable from People v. Porcaro, 6 N.Y.2d 248, 189 N.Y.S.2d 194, 160 N.E.2d 488; People v. Oyola, 6 N.Y.2d 259, 189 N.Y.S.2d 203, 160 N.E.2d 494, and the cases cited therein in which the indictments or informations were dismissed. The court in each of those cases after considering the record before it which contained among other things not only the testimony of the infant complainant but also the testimony of the defendant denying the charges, held that as a matter of law the charges had not been established beyond a reasonable doubt to sustain a conviction. We have reviewed the record in this case most carefully and in our judgment there is ample evidence to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly the conviction should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Appellant specifically waived assignment of counsel upon this appeal. All concur, except NOONAN, J., who...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP