People v. Boundy
| Decision Date | 25 January 1962 |
| Citation | 225 N.Y.S.2d 207,10 N.Y.2d 518,180 N.E.2d 565 |
| Parties | , 180 N.E.2d 565 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. George Joseph BOUNDY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Joseph H. Levie and Anthony F. Marra, New York City, for appellant.
Frank D. O'Connor, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Benj. J. Jacobson, Long Island City, of counsel), for respondent.
Defendant's coram nobis application was denied at the Queens County Court without a hearing and the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed.
Petitioner alleges that he was insane on January 23, 1959 when he pleaded guilty to attempted robbery in the third degree and on April 17, 1959 when he was sentenced to 7 1/2 to 15 years in prison. Of course, if he was mentally incompetent at the time of his plea the judgment was void and coram nobis is the appropriate remedy (People v. Boehm, 309 N.Y. 362, 368, 130 N.E.2d 897). We think that the facts shown in the petition require as matter of law and in sound policy that there be a trial of the issue.
Only 10 months after this judgment defendant was committed to Dannemora State Hospital on a certification of insanity. Nine years earlier, in 1950, when he was 18 years old, he had been committed from prison to the same Dannemora State Hospital and had remained there for two years. When released from the hospital back to the prison, he remained there for three weeks only before being returned to Dannemora State Hospital for further hospitalization of three months during which he received shock treatments. Back he went to prison, this time for seven months, and then was again committed to the same State hospital for further hospitalization and additional shock treatments. When he was paroled in 1957, one of the conditions of parole was that he continue under psychiatric care. After being free on parole for about six months he was arrested as a parole violator and while awaiting disposition of this charge was on 12 different occasions brought under observation because of suicide attempts. He then was sent to Sing Sing as a parole violator and to serve an additional sentence for the 1957 crime. Next, he was brought back from Sing Sing to stand trial on a charge of robbery, first degree, but on arraignment was committed to Kings County Hospital by a Magistrate for psychiatric examination. He remained at the hospital for six months and, according to the petition, was under sedation during that whole time. Then in January, 1959 he came before the County Court of Queens County, was arraigned, pleaded not guilty, had counsel assigned, later withdrew the not guilty plea and pleaded guilty, and on April 17, 1959 was given the sentence which he is now attempting to vacate. At the time of sentencing there was before the court as part of a probation report the statements of two psychiatrists to the effect that he was not insane and was capable of understanding the charge against him. No hearing was had on the question of sanity. The minutes of sentence show that at the time of sentencing defendant, answering the usual questions by the Judge, admitted the crime and said that he wished to plead guilty and that he understood that if it turned out he had been previously convicted his prison term would be increased, and stated that no one had made any promises to him to induce the plea. There was no questioning or discussion as to defendant's mental condition.
The fact that defendant had a previous history of mental disturbance does not in itself prove that he was insane at the time of this judgment (People v. Flora, 306 N.Y. 615, 116 N.E.2d 79)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thursby v. State
...Ill.2d 131, 177 N.E.2d 203, 206 (1961). People v. Smyth, 3 N.Y.2d 184, 164 N.Y.S.2d 737, 143 N.E.2d 922 (1957). People v. Boundy, 10 N.Y.2d 518, 225 N.Y.S.2d 207, 180 N.E.2d 565. Mental illnesses are of many sorts and have many characteristics. They may differ widely in their effects on a p......
-
United States v. Fay
...of Appeals impose no time limit within which a motion for reargument must be filed. 2 Compare People v. Boundy, Dkt. No. 331, New York Court of Appeals 1962, 10 N.Y.2d 518, 225 N.Y.S.2d 207, 180 N. E.2d 565, with People v. Codarre, 10 N.Y. 2d 361, 223 N.Y.S.2d 457, 179 N.E.2d 475 3 In denyi......
-
People v. Gensler
...history of mental disturbance does not in itself prove that he was insane at the time of this judgment" ( People v. Boundy, 10 N.Y.2d 518, 521, 225 N.Y.S.2d 207, 180 N.E.2d 565; People v. Flora, 306 N.Y. 615, 116 N.E.2d 79). The Trial Judge in such circumstances has, under the statute, the ......
-
People v. Aponte
...Brief mention may be made of the cases which preceded and followed Booth (supra). We sustained Coram nobis in People v. Boundy, 10 N.Y.2d 518, 225 N.Y.S.2d 207, 180 N.E.2d 565, in which the record did not demonstrate that defendant was incapable of participating in the proceedings. In the c......