People v. Humbert
| Decision Date | 18 September 1995 |
| Citation | 631 N.Y.S.2d 724,219 A.D.2d 674 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Michael HUMBERT, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Matthew Muraskin, Hempstead (Kent V. Moston and Judah Serfaty, of counsel), for appellant.
Denis Dillon, District Attorney, Mineola (Judith R. Sternberg and Denise Pavlides, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANGANO, P.J., and JOY, KRAUSMAN and FLORIO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.), rendered July 22, 1992, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.
ORDERED that the matter is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, to hear and report on the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty, on which motion the defendant's appellate counsel shall represent him, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim. The County Court, Nassau County, shall file its report with all convenient speed.
In response to the defendant's application for permission to withdraw his plea of guilty, the defense counsel stressed what he had done on the defendant's behalf and specifically controverted the defendant's contention that he had pressured him into pleading guilty. Under these circumstances, the "defendant's right to counsel was adversely affected when his attorney * * * became a witness against him", and the court "should not have proceeded to determine the motion without first assigning the defendant new counsel" (People v. Santana, 156 A.D.2d 736, 737, 550 N.Y.S.2d 356; see also, People v. Rozzell, 20 N.Y.2d 712, 282 N.Y.S.2d 775, 229 N.E.2d 452; People v. Wilson, 91 A.D.2d 1052, 458 N.Y.S.2d 655). Accordingly, the matter is remitted for a new determination at which the defendant shall be represented by appellate counsel. At this point, we express no opinion as to the merits of the defendant's application.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Cruz
...People v. Rozzell, 20 N.Y.2d 712, 282 N.Y.S.2d 775, 229 N.E.2d 452; People v. Rodas, 238 A.D.2d 358, 656 N.Y.S.2d 54; People v. Humbert, 219 A.D.2d 674, 631 N.Y.S.2d 724). Thus, the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court to hear and report on the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea. At......
-
People v. Caple
...him, or make any statements which were adverse to him (see, People v Wilder, 246 A.D.2d 750; cf, People v Cruz, 244 A.D.2d 564; People v Humbert, 219 A.D.2d 674; People v Kellar, 213 A.D.2d 1063). Rather, counsel attempted to clarify the circumstances surrounding the plea proceedings (see, ......
-
People v. Jones
...156 A.D.2d 736, 737, 550 N.Y.S.2d 356; see also, People v. Rozzell, 20 N.Y.2d 712, 282 N.Y.S.2d 775, 229 N.E.2d 452; People v. Humbert, 219 A.D.2d 674, 631 N.Y.S.2d 724; People v. Wilson, 91 A.D.2d 1052, 458 N.Y.S.2d 655). Accordingly, the matter is remitted for a new hearing on the defenda......
-
People v. Rodas
...v. Jones, 223 A.D.2d 559, 636 N.Y.S.2d 382, quoting People v. Santana, 156 A.D.2d 736, 737, 550 N.Y.S.2d 356; see, People v. Humbert, 219 A.D.2d 674, 631 N.Y.S.2d 724). Accordingly, the matter is remitted for a new hearing on the defendant's application at which the defendant shall be repre......