People ex rel. Woodruff v. Mancusi

• Citation: 341 N.Y.S.2d 663,41 A.D.2d 12
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. Jo Lee WOODRUFF, Respondent-Appellant, v. Vincent R. MANCUSI, Superintendent, Attica Correctional Facility, Appellant-Respondent.
• Decision Date: 16 February 1973
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 663

341 N.Y.S.2d 663

41 A.D.2d 12

PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. Jo Lee WOODRUFF Respondent-Appellant, v. Vincent R. MANCUSI, Superintendent, Attica Correctional Facility, Appellant-Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

Feb. 16, 1973.

Ruth Kessler Toch, Sol. Gen., Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., Albany, for appellant; Richard H. Dawson,

Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc.,

Legal Aid Bureau Of Buffalo, Inc., Nathaniel A. Barrell, Buffalo, for respondent; Edward L. Chassin, Buffalo, of counsel.

Before MARSH, J.P., and MOULE, CARDAMONE, SIMONS and HENRY, JJ.

OPINION

MARSH, Justice Presiding:

This is an appeal by respondent from a judgment in a habeas corpus proceeding in Wyoming County Court, remanding relator to the authorities of Cattaraugus County for further proceedings on his indictment.

Ralator was indicted for Burglary Third (5 counts) and Grand Larceny Third (4 counts) involving five unrelated criminal incidents occurring over a period of several months. Following arraignment, assignment of counsel and entry of a not guilty plea, relator withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty to the first and second counts of the indictment charging Burglary Third and Grand Larceny Third, in satisfaction of the entire indictment. Several weeks later, represented by the same counsel, relator was sentenced to a maximum of seven years on his plea to Burglary Third and to a maximum of four years on his plea to Grand Larceny Third, such sentences to run concurrently.

At the hearing on the return of the writ counsel for the relator moved 'to amend the petition to cover the Boykin issue'. No factual allegation was made in support of the amendment which was granted by the court. Relator now urges that the failure of the County Court prior to the acceptance of his guilty plea to enumerate specifically each of the three rights mentioned in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274, relating to self-incrimination, confrontation and jury trial and to secure his expressed waiver of those rights leaves a record inadequate to establish that the plea was intelligent and voluntary as required by Boykin. We do not find such inadequacy in the record.

On arraignment relator was advised of his right to counsel, he requested counsel, counsel was assigned and the arraignment was adjourned for a week. On the adjourned date, with counsel present, relator pleaded not guilty to the entire indictment and the proceedings were adjourned for one week. On the following adjourned date the Judge's minutes and the clerk's minutes show that the relator appeared before the court with his attorney present; that counsel advised the court that relator wished to withdraw his not guilty plea and enter a plea to the first two counts of the indictment to cover all others in the indictment and that the court questioned relator as to whether he understood that a plea to the first and second counts would be a felony in each case and that he answered in the affirmative. The court then asked relator if he had discussed the plea with his attorney and if any plea he might enter would be of his own free will and without any threat or promise on bahalf of his attorney, the District Attorney or the court to induce him to enter such plea and that the relator answered in the affirmative. The court approved the withdrawal of the not guilty plea to the first and second counts and the relator than entered, in satisfaction of the entire indictment, a plea of guilty to the first count charging Burglary Third and the second count charging Grand Larceny Third after the reading of such counts to him. Upon his appearance with counsel for sentence eight weeks later he stated that he had no legal cause to show why sentence should not be pronounced.

From the record, while there was no formal catechism of questions to relator as to his knowledge of his rights, it does appear that he was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings, which were not hurried, and that each step followed a lapse of time of at least a week; that the court fairly...