People v. Nickerson
| Decision Date | 31 May 1956 |
| Citation | 1 N.Y.2d 815,153 N.Y.S.2d 73,135 N.E.2d 604 |
| Parties | , 135 N.E.2d 604 PEOPLE, Respondent, v. Donald B. NICKERSON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, 1 A.D.2d 763, 147 N.Y.S.2d 285.
Defendant was convicted, on plea of guilty, of assault in the first degree and of carrying a concealed weapon, and he made application for writ of error coram nobis.
The Onondaga County Court, Leo W. Breed, J., entered an order denying the application, and the defendant appealed.
The Appellate Division affirmed the order and held that evidence sustained finding of County Court that at time of defendant's arraignment, plea, sentence, and resentence he was capable of understanding the charges against him and of making his defense thereto, without considering witnesses' testimony, which should have been excluded under the Civil Practice Act, § 353.
The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals and made a motion to have the appeal heard on original record and typewritten briefs and for assignment of counsel.
The Court of Appeals, 1 N.Y.2d 688, 150 N.Y.S.2d 616, granted the motion and assigned Robert J. Cooney, Jr., Esp., 328 University Building, Syracuse, New York, as counsel for defendant on the appeal.
The People of the State of New York contended on appeal by defendant to the Court of Appeals that there was no basis for the claim that defendant at time of his arraignment, plea, original sentence, or final sentence was in such a state of insanity that he was incapable of understanding the charge, indictment, or proceedings or of making his defense, and that there was no fraudulent concealing from the County Court on part of District Attorney or his assistants of any fact bearing on the mental condition of defendant at the time of his arraignment, plea, original sentence, or final sentence.
Arthur W. Wilson, Dist. Atty., and Dan J. Kelly, Asst. Dist. Atty., Syracuse, for plaintiff-respondent.
Order affirmed.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Christopher
... ... People, 4 Denio 9, 27). The court possessed broad discretion to determine whether to inquire into defendants' capacity (see, People v. Smith, 3 N.Y.2d 184, 186, 164 N.Y.S.2d 737, 143 N.E.2d 922; People v. Nickerson, 1 N.Y.2d 815, 153 N.Y.S.2d 73, 135 N.E.2d 604) and whether to impanel a jury or to decide the issue itself (Weihofen, Mental Disorder as a Criminal Defense, at 429, 445-447). If it was satisfied from its own observations that there was no basis to question defendant's capacity, he was not ... ...
-
People v. Smyth
... ... Even if he did so apply, it would have been in the discretion of the court to determine whether or not his application should have been granted (People v. Nickerson, 1 N.Y.2d 815, 153 N.Y.S.2d 73). The exercise of discretion by the trial court would have been final unless abused. It is not necessary to consider now what would [3 N.Y.2d 187] constitute an abuse of discretion either in the realm of fact or law, inasmuch as this record contains nothing from ... ...
-
People ex rel. Pugach on Petition of Kahn v. Klein
... ... Even if he did so apply, it would have been in the discretion of the court to determine whether or not his application should have been granted. (People v. Nickerson, 1 N.Y.2d 815, 153 N .Y.S.2d 73). The exercise of discretion by the trial court would have been final unless abused. * * *' ... The Court of Appeals did not consider what would 'constitute an abuse of discretion either in the nature of fact or law' in declining to direct a mental ... ...
-
People v. Linn
... ... Upon the present record the trial court did not have before it any information sufficient to require a hearing on its own motion as to the defendant's competency at the time he pled guilty. (Cf. People v. Drake, 15 N.Y.2d 626, 255 N.Y.S.2d 671, 203 N.E.2d 922; People v. Nickerson, 1 N.Y.2d 815, 153 N.Y.S.2d 73, 135 N.E.2d 604.) Upon the present record there is nothing of substance to indicate that the defendant was incompetent at the time he ... ...