People v. Ludwig
| Decision Date | 01 December 1965 |
| Citation | 266 N.Y.S.2d 134,213 N.E.2d 463,16 N.Y.2d 1062 |
| Parties | , 213 N.E.2d 463 The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Harry Lewis LUDWIG, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 23 A.D.2d 497, 256 N.Y.S.2d 126.
The defendant made a motion for writ of error coram nobis to vacate a judgment rendered in the former County Court of Queens County on February 26, 1954 on a verdict convicting him of robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the first degree, and assault in the second degree. The defendant was represented by his retained counsel at the trial at which he was convicted, and notice of appeal was timely served and filed by such counsel on March 29, 1954. The district attorney on May 12, 1954 sent a letter to such counsel, but not to defendant, stating that more than 30 days had elapsed since the time of the filing of the notice of appeal and that unless the appeal was perfected or a motion was made to enlarge time to do so, the district attorney would move to dismiss the appeal. The district attorney on September 1, 1954 made a motion in the Appellate Division to dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute, and a copy of the motion papers was served by mail on defendant's counsel.
The Appellate Division on September 13, 1954 dismissed the appeal, and a copy of the order was served on defendant's counsel by mail on October 13, 1954. In the petition for writ of error coram nobis the defendant alleged that if he had been aware of the fact that his counsel could have made an application to proceed in forma pauperis, he would have asked counsel to do so or would have attempted to do so himself.
The Supreme court, Queens County, entered an order denying the motion for writ of error coram nobis, and the defendant appealed.
The Appellate Division entered an order affirming the order of the Supreme Court. Hopkins, J., dissented and voted to reverse the order and to remit the proceeding to the Supreme Court for a new hearing on ground that if the defendant were actually indigent during the period that his appeal was pending, and if in fact he was prevented from prosecuting his appeal because of his indigency, he was entitled to reinstatement of his appeal.
The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals.
Frank D. O'Connor, Kew Gardens (Benj. J. Jacobson, Jackson Heights, of counsel), for respondent.
Order reversed upon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bachert
...217 N.Y.S.2d 77, 176 N.E.2d 90, supra ); that the defendant's indigency prevented the perfection of the appeal (People v. Ludwig, 16 N.Y.2d 1062, 266 N.Y.S.2d 134, 213 N.E.2d 463; People v. Stanley, 12 N.Y.2d 250, 238 N.Y.S.2d 935, 189 N.E.2d 478); that the appellant's insanity prevented pe......
-
People v. Montgomery
...review simply because of his poverty. (See People v. Ramsey, 23 N.Y.2d 656, 295 N.Y.S.2d 338, 242 N.E.2d 488; People v. Ludwig, 16 N.Y.2d 1062, 266 N.Y.S.2d 134, 213 N.E.2d 463; People v. Hairston, 10 N.Y.2d 92, 217 N.Y.S.2d 77, 176 N.E.2d 90; People v. Pitts, 6 N.Y.2d 288, 189 N.Y.S.2d 650......
-
People v. Callaway
...relief where assigned counsel misled an indigent defendant by telling him that an appeal would be costly (see People v. Ludwig, 16 N.Y.2d 1062, 266 N.Y.S.2d 134, 213 N.E.2d 463) or where counsel decided, on his own initiative, to abandon an appeal that had already been instituted. (See Peop......
-
United States v. WARDEN OF SING SING PRISON
...not raise the issue again for more than 15 years and then, only following his second conviction. Compare People v. Ludwig, 16 N.Y.2d 1062, 266 N.Y.S.2d 134, 113 N.E.2d 463 (1965). Since it is undisputed that petitioner did not seek relief in the State courts to proceed as an indigent withou......