People v. Gonzalez
| Decision Date | 30 January 1957 |
| Citation | 182 N.Y.S.2d 142,156 N.E.2d 69,15 Misc.2d 438 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Albert GONZALEZ, alias Joseph Santana, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Court of General Sessions |
Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty., New York City (by Bernard L. Friedman, New York City, of counsel), for the People.
Albert Gonzalez, defendant in pro. per.
Defendant applies by means of two applications for a writ of error coram nobis. One was addressed to the court proper and received through the mail by the clerk on July 28, 1956, and the other was addressed to the Hon. Francis L. Valente, a former Judge of this court, and received in an envelope postmarked December 13, 1956.
The relevant facts are that the defendant was indicted for Robbery in the First Degree, Grand Larceny in the First Degree, Assault in the Second Degree, Criminally Possessing a Pistol After Prior Conviction, and Carrying a Dangerous Weapon After Prior Conviction.
The defendant pleaded guilty to two of the counts, Grand Larceny in the First Degree and Robbery in the First Degree, to cover all the counts of the indictment. Thereafter, he was sentenced by the Hon. Francis L. Valente to the State Prison for a term of fifteen to thirty years on the robbery count as a second felony offender.
One of the complaints by defendant, raised in both motions, is alleged police brutality. Another complaint, raised in one of the motions, is, in substance, that his attorney had told him that if he would accept a plea, then he would get a certain specific sentence. Still another complaint, raised in the other motion, is that the District Attorney had told his attorney that if he, the defendant, would accept a plea, he would be sentenced to a certain specific term. On the day of the sentence, however, the term received by the defendant was greater than the one allegedly mentioned by the defendant's attorney. Hence, these motions.
As to the question of police brutality, there is no claim that the plea was caused by the alleged brutality. Therefore, there is no issue on this phase for this Court to pass upon.
As to the complaint pertaining to the plea suggested by defendant's attorney, this Court considers it of no legal merit. Even, for the sake of argument, if defendant's attorney had been of the opinion that the defendant would receive a certain specific term, such opinion would not be sufficient ground for granting the relief applied for herein. The fact that the opinion of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Brim
...of the sentence to be given, even if erroneous, did not furnish ground for vacating a judgment of conviction. See also People v. Gonzalez, 15 Misc.2d 438, 182 N.Y.S.2d 142; People v. Saladak, 15 Misc.2d 506, 183 N.Y.S.2d 276; People v. Wilkes, Co.Ct., 136 N.Y.S.2d 662; People v. Codarre, 28......
-
People v. Portner
...People v. Baldwin, 15 Misc.2d 431, 182 N.Y.S.2d 85, motion for leave to appeal denied 7 A.D.2d 629, 181 N.Y.S.2d 761; People v. Gonzalez, 15 Misc.2d 438, 182 N.Y.S.2d 142; People v. Vasquez, 18 Misc.2d 614, 189 N.Y.S.2d 955, supra. Not even a judge is bound to know all the law. Byrnes v. Pa......
- People v. Irrizari
-
People v. Williams
...990, 204 N.Y.S.2d 85. Besides, the alleged police brutality is not shown to have been the cause of the revised plea. People v. Gonzalez, 15 Misc.2d 438, 182 N.Y.S.2d 142. Then again, a prior motion of like kind had been denied by me. See N.Y. Law Journal, Dec. 13, 1957, p. 8, col. 4. And, n......