People v. Jones

• Decision Date: 20 May 1968
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. William C. JONES, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 92

291 N.Y.S.2d 92

30 A.D.2d 560

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. William C. JONES, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

May 20, 1968.

Aaron E. Koota, Dist. Atty., Kings County, for respondent; J. Mitchell Rosenberg, Asst. Dist. Atty., of counsel.

Anthony F. Marra, New York City, for defendant-appellant; Alice Daniel, New York City, of counsel.

Before BELDOCK, P.J., and CHRIST, BRENNAN, HOPKINS and BENJAMIN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered November 14, 1966, convicting defendant of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment reversed, on the law, and case remitted to the trial court for the purpose of (a) holding a hearing upon defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty, (b) making a determination thereon De novo and (c) further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. No questions of fact were considered on this appeal.

In our opinion, it was error for the trial court to decide defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty solely upon affidavits and information educed from the probation report (cf. Williams v. People of State of New York, 337 U.S. 241, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1337; People v. Peace, 18 N.Y.2d 230, 273 N.Y.S.2d 64, 219 N.E.2d 419). Defendant was not afforded an adequate opportunity to substantiate his claim; and '(i)t is also quite clear that where * * * subsequent interpositions by defendant on sentencing raise questions, the court should be quick to offer the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea and at the very least conduct a hearing' (People v Nixon, 21 N.Y.2d 338, 355, 287 N.Y.S.2d 659, 672, 234 N.E.2d 687, 696). Under these circumstances, the trial court did not exercise the informed discretion envisioned by the statute (Code Crim.Proc., § 337; People v. Vignera, 29 A.D.2d 657, 286 N.Y.S.2d 557; People v. Klein, 26 A.D.2d 559, 270 N.Y.S.2d 999).

After a rehearing the trial court should consider the factors in People v. Nixon (supra) and the 'general, rather oblique, admission of guilt' made by defendant at the time his plea was accepted (People v. Burton, 28 A.D.2d 686, 280 N.Y.S.2d 690). The court should 'also consider prejudice to the People as a significant factor' (People v. Klein, 29 A.D.2d 774, 287 N.Y.S.2d 749). Among other things the new hearing should fully develop the prejudice claimed by the People because of the disappearance of an alleged...