People v. Bofill
| Decision Date | 13 November 1959 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of The State of New York v. James BOFILL, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Court of General Sessions |
Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty., New York City, by Charles J. McDonough, New York City, of counsel, for the People.
James Bofill, defendant, in pro. per.
Petitioner's application by way of writ of error coram nobis poses this not unusual question: Does a motion of this kind lie after conviction by a plea of guilty agreed to by defendant on the faith of a promise of a specific sentence when made by the District Attorney, not, however, to defendant but to his lawyer, and thereafter broken when the Sentencing Judge meted out a higher sentence?
Defendant asserts that his plea of guilty to the crime of murder in the second degree came to pass after his lawyer had assured him that the promised sentence would be twenty years to life. This assurance was the motivating reason that induced him to succumb to a change of his plea of not guilty to one of guilty. In lieu of the promised sentence aforestated, the Judge imposed a different sentence carrying cumulative punishment of thirty years to life.
It should be noted here that nowhere in defendant's application is there any charge of fraud, misrepresentation, or coercion lodged against either the Judge or the District Attorney. See People v. Vance, 7 A.D.2d 661, 179 N.Y.S.2d 148. The only statement by defendant having any semblance in this direction, to wit, 'misrepresentation had taken place before the plea, and had in fact induced the plea,' clearly proves itself abortive, being vague and conclusory, and besides, aimlessly directed.
The upshot of my careful examination of petitioner's moving papers is that I find therein nothing of any factual merit as proof that the District Attorney had promised defendant anything. His lawyer's assurance in this respect amounts to naught in law as an element having any binding effect upon the District Attorney.
A case apropos to the situation at bar is People v. King, 284 App.Div. 1015, 135 N.Y.S.2d 396. In this citation, the Court made this observation (284 App.Div. at page 1015, and 135 N.Y.S.2d at page 397):
'A prediction or representation by a defendant's counsel of the length of the sentence to be given, even if erroneous, does not furnish ground for vacating a judgment of conviction * * *.'
And this (Id.):
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Brim
...in law. Recently, I had occasion to pass upon a similar question, the answer to which is now reported in the case of People v. Bofill, 19 Misc.2d 708, 192 N.Y.S.2d 821. I held, on the basis of higher authority, that a prediction or a representation by a defendant's counsel of the length of ......
-
State v. Rose
...States, 116 U.S.App.D.C. 404, 324 F.2d 436, 441(8); People v. King, 284 App.Div. 1015, 135 N.Y.S.2d 396, 397(1--3); People v. Bofill, 19 Misc.2d 708, 192 N.Y.S.2d 821; People v. Brim, 22 Misc.2d 335, 199 N.Y.S.2d 744, 745--746(1); Davidson v. State, 92 Idaho 104, 437 P.2d On the other hand,......
-
People v. Tarver
...coercion and trickery to any responsibility that could be held to be attributable to any act of the district attorney. People v. Bofill, 19 Misc.2d 708, 192 N.Y.S.2d 821; Eli Frank on Coram Nobis (Supp., 1960), page I have expounded on these phases for the purpose of clarification. After th......