People v. Buzzetti

CourtNew York Court of General Sessions
Writing for the CourtTHOMAS DICKENS
Citation229 N.Y.S.2d 196
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Peter BUZZETTI, Defendant.
Decision Date12 June 1962

Page 196

229 N.Y.S.2d 196
The PEOPLE of the State of New York
v.
Peter BUZZETTI, Defendant.
Court of General Sessions, New York County.
June 12, 1962.

Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty., Robert E. Goldman, New York City, of counsel, for the people.

Peter Buzzetti, defendant, in pro. per.

THOMAS DICKENS, Judge.

The cardinal reason for bringing this coram nobis motion is, 'Petitioner made every sincere effort to appropriately file a notice of appeal when he entered Sing Sing Prison [in 1938], but was inadvertently

Page 197

frustrated in his attempts by prison authorities,' and as a result, 'Petitioner was therefore constrained to abandon his appeal,' from the judgment of conviction. Petition, p. 4. (Emphasis supplied.)

In the same breath, he blows hot and cold with this statement:

'--Petitioner did not know at that time that he could of [sic] appealed the excessive sentence to sec. 543 Code of Criminal Procedure, and was entitled to such an appeal.' Petition, p. . (Emphasis supplied.)

And then he stresses with this statement:

'--petitioner would again like to bring to the attention of the court he was not aware at that time that section 543 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was available to him because of his age.' Petition, p. 7. (Emphasis supplied.)

And then he proceeds to make this climactic statement:

'Through the advent of People v. Hairston, 10 N.Y.2d 92 [217 N.Y.S.2d 77, only recently determined] petitioner came to the realization that he could institute the instant proceeding and regain the opportunity to initiate an appeal.' Petition, p. . (Emphasis supplied.)

It is to be noted here that defendant had been represented by an attorney at the trial.

This inevitable obvious query emerges from those contradictory assertions: If defendant did not know at the time when he had entered Sing Sing as an inmate that he could have appealed from the judgment of conviction, then how can he truthfully say now that he 'made every sincere effort to appropriately file a notice of appeal' at that time? or, then again, how can he truthfully say now that he had mentioned anything to anybody at all at that time about the subject of appeal, for that matter, if the realization of his right to appeal came upon him with 'the advent of People v. Hairston?'--the most recent case on the subject. The logical answer seems to be clear: He had never even had any seriour or real intention, as later confirmed herein, of raising the question of appeal until the Hairston decision came to his attention; therefore, the reasonable inference is that the last of the three foregoing excerpts, as taken from his own petition, may factually be said to be the nearest to the truth or may be regarded as the truth itself, although such statement, as is evident, was unintentionally or unwittingly expressed.

The whole thing has the appearance of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • People v. Buzzetti
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • September 29, 1964
    ...for respondent. P. Skloot, New York City, for defendant-appellant. Order, entered on June 22, 1962, unanimously affirmed, Gen.Sess., 229 N.Y.S.2d 196. No...
1 cases
  • People v. Buzzetti
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • September 29, 1964
    ...for respondent. P. Skloot, New York City, for defendant-appellant. Order, entered on June 22, 1962, unanimously affirmed, Gen.Sess., 229 N.Y.S.2d 196. No...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT