People v. Buzzetti
| Decision Date | 14 September 1960 |
| Citation | 206 N.Y.S.2d 481 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Peter BUZZETTI, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Court of General Sessions |
Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty., New York City (Charles J. McDonough, New York City, of counsel), for the People.
Peter Buzzetti in pro. per.
In 1938, defendant was convicted on his plea of guilty, taken at the conclusion of the People's case, for the crime of robbery, first degree, committed with the use of a pistol. Now, after a lag of twenty-two years, he presents this application (solely a petition written by hand) for the purpose of having me nullify the additional term of servitude of not less than five nor more than ten years, imposed by the sentencing Judge upon him for being armed at the time of the robbery.
The gist of his contention is that when he had pleaded guilty 'he did so without also pleading to being armed, i. e., with a firearm.' Defendant's Petition, page [1].
But, no tangible proof is submitted in substantiation of this bare allegation. Evidently, in an effort to bolster this weakness, defendant asserts, 'An inspection of the minutes of pleading will so reveal [that is, not armed] * * *.' Petition, page And further: 'However, petitioner contends that the plea read in its entirety does not indicate in any way that petitioner was so armed.' Petition, page [2].
Defendant, assumingly, speaks of these minutes as if he had, at some recent time or other, seen, read, or been made, in some way, acquainted with their contents. Such apparent assumption, according to the court file, has not the slightest basis in fact, and hence, is entirely unfounded. The reason is simple. The file contains no such minutes. They are missing. Of this defendant had been made aware only a short time before setting the present motion on foot. He had been so informed by the clerk in the early part of 1959, at which time he had inquired about the minutes, and again later in that year, each time by an exchange of letters. Consequently, his pretense of having knowledge of their contents as if these minutes were existent, I consider, in the face of the negative information conveyed to him by the clerk, to be a brazen attempt to mislead in an effort to make his contention look good, regardless of the truth. See Defendant's Letters, dated April 4 and 28, 1959, September 8 and 22, 1959, and October 26, 1959; Clerk's Letters, dated May 7, 1959, and October 29, 1959.
On the other hand, notations on the procedural documents contained in the jackets of the clerk's office and notations on the jackets themselves, chronicling the various incidental happenings of this prosecution, very convincingly persuade me that there is nothing legally wrong with the correctness of the sentence. Its rendition was warranted on the basis of the salient matters recorded in the aforementioned file and of the set principles of law that apply to the composite of these matters.
These matters are comprised of two separate indictments in which defendant and three codefendants were each charged with the crime, among other crimes therein, of robbery, first degree, with the aid of a pistol, committed on two separate occasions upon two different persons; of the plea of guilty by defendant and a codefendant to this charge of robbery, first degree, each while armed, entered at the conclusion of the People's case, as noted previously, such plea taking in both indictments (whereas pleas of guilty to robbery, unarmed, were entered by the remaining codefendants); of the sentencing Judge's notation that the 'Court adjudges this defendant was armed at the time of the crime alleged'; and of the name of an attorney whose appearance is noted in behalf of defendant. (Emphasis supplied.)
The set principles of law are that a plea of guilty is equivalent to a conviction by a jury (People v. Brancazio, 22 Misc.2d 302, 196 N.Y.S.2d 167), and that when entered to a count of armed robbery such plea carries with it, as in the case at bar, an admission of being armed as charged. People ex rel. Codoluto v. Martin, 262 App.Div. 934, 28 N.Y.S.2d 865; People v. Scharaga, Co.Ct., 45 N.Y.S.2d 343; and cf. People v. Krennen, 264 N.Y. 108, 190 N.E. 167. In this connection, I venture to assume that the District Attorney, as a quasi-judicial officer representing the People (People v. Brancazio, supra), had already supplied all the necessary evidence to sustain the major count of robbery while armed, at the time when defendant had decided to take the plea of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Buzzetti
...in the indictment to which he had pleaded guilty by compromise. The disposition of that motion by me is now reported in People v. Buzzetti, Gen. Sess., 206 N.Y.S.2d 481. In that instance I took defendant to task on veracity for his misrecital of part of the court record, and censured his co......