People v. Noia

• Decision Date: 19 June 1956
• Citation: 3 Misc.2d 447,158 N.Y.S.2d 683
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Charles NOIA, Defendant.
• Court: New York County Court

Page 683

158 N.Y.S.2d 683

3 Misc.2d 447

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Charles NOIA, Defendant.

Kings County Court.

June 19, 1956.

Edward S. Silver, Dist. Atty., New York City (William I. Siegel, Asst. Dist. Atty., Kings County, Brooklyn, of counsel), for the People.

Maurice Edelbaum, New York City, for defendant.

GEORGE J. JOYCE, Judge.

Three persons were indicted in this county on the 11th day of January, 1941, and charged with homicide, murder in its first degree. They were Santo Caminito, Frank Bonino and the present petitioner, Charles Noia. They were brought to trial on February 16, 1942, and on February 21, 1942, all three were convicted of murder in the first degree, with the recommendation by the trial jury that the punishment for each be life imprisonment. On March 29, 1942, pursuant to the recommendation of the jury, each defendant was sentenced to Sing Sing Prison for the term of his natural life.

Thereafter, the defendants Caminito and Bonino appealed to both the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals. The judgment of conviction was affirmed as to each. 265 App.Div. 960, 38 N.Y.S.2d 1019, affirmed 291 N.Y. 541, 50 N.E.2d 654, reargument denied 296 N.Y. 1004, 73 N.E.2d 579, 297 N.Y. 882, 79 N.E.2d 277. Caminito then petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for an order of certiorari, which was denied. 348 U.S. 839, 75 S.Ct. 46, 99 L.Ed. 662.

We come now to 1954. In that year, Caminito filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. The writ was dismissed. United States ex rel. Caminito v. Murphy, 127 F.Supp. 689. The United States District Court Judge, however, granted a certificate of probable cause and an appeal was taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which court reversed the District Court ruling unanimously. It vacated and set aside the 1942 conviction and remanded the matter back to this court. 222 F.2d 698, certiorari denied 350 U.S. 896, 76 S.Ct. 155, 100 L.Ed. 788.

Caminito then made a motion before me to dismiss the indictment in so far as it concerned him. Upon a reading of the grand jury minutes, there appeared to be no legal evidence against Caminito except the corpus delicti and his alleged confession. But in the aforementioned United States Court of Appeals decision, Judge Frank held, as a matter of law, that Caminito's alleged confession was involuntary and could not be considered. In a sweeping denunciation of the means employed to secure this alleged confession, he also stated, as appears in petitioner's moving papers: 'These facts make it clear that the trial did not measure up to the standards prescribed by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. The confessions obtained by these loathsome means were no more evidence than if they had been forged. Absent, then, any admissible evidence of guilt, the trial judge should have dismissed the indictment or directed a verdict of acquittal.' 222 F.2d 698, 700.

I reserved decision on Caminito's motion until the district attorney of this county applied to the Supreme Court of the United States for certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals. Upon learning that this application was denied, 350 U.S. 896, 76 S.Ct. 155, 100 L.Ed. 788, I granted Caminito's motion and dismissed the indictment as to him.

The second defendant, Bonino, obtained a reargument of his appeal in our own Court of Appeals. Upon the reargument, that court vacated and set aside the judgment of conviction as to him and directed that he be retried. People v. Bonino, 1 N.Y.2d 752, 152 N.Y.S.2d 298.

Now comes the third defendant, Charles Noia, the petitioner herein, who is at present serving his life sentence upon the conviction on the same indictment. He asks for the same consideration that was afforded to the other two, that is, that his conviction be set aside because it was unlawfully obtained. He asks this court to do for him what the Federal courts did for Caminito and what the New York State Court of Appeals has done for Bonino.

The district attorney in his affidavit opposing Noia's motion recites the fact that Noia did not appeal his conviction to the appellate courts of this state as both Caminito and Bonino did; nor did he seek in the federal courts, as Caminito did. The district attorney, therefore, argues in effect that, having failed to exhaust his state and federal remedies, the petitioner may not now seek a review of his conviction, whether by way of a coram nobis proceeding or a writ of habeas corpus or any...