People v. Rodriquez
| Citation | 221 N.Y.S.2d 532,14 A.D.2d 917 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondents, v. Ralph RODRIQUEZ, and Alfonso Rodriquez, Appellants. |
| Decision Date | 20 November 1961 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Frances Kahn, New York City, for appellants.
Edward S. Silver, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn, for respondent; David Diamond, Brooklyn, of counsel.
Before NOLAN, P. J., and BELDOCK, UGHETTA, CHRIST and PETTE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendants from an order of the County Court, Kings County, dated and entered March 13, 1961, denying, after a hearing, their coram nobis application to vacate as to each of them a judgment of said court rendered June 24, 1958 after a jury trial, convicting them of attempted robbery in the first degree, and sentencing defendant Ralph Rodriquez to serve a term of seven and a half to fifteen years, and sentencing defendant Alfonso Rodriquez, as a second offender, to serve a term of ten to twenty years.
Order affirmed.
Although defendants alleged various grounds in the petition, they produced no proof in support of any of them. One of the grounds alleged was that the Trial Court withheld certain evidence--Magistrate's Court's minutes, which indicate that the prosecution's main witness failed to identify defendants.
At the hearing (to which the District Attorney consented in view of the defendants' claim that at the trial the Assistant District Attorney had coerced a witness to testify falsely under threat of prosecution for perjury) defendants moved for the disqualification of the judge presiding, who also had been the trial judge, on the ground that he will be called as a witness to testify concerning two bench conferences at the trial, which resulted in the suppression of the Magistrate's Court's minutes from the jury.
The court denied the motion to disqualify himself unless defendants produced proof to substantiate their claim. Defendants then called the judge as their witness. The judge declined to testify for the reason that the incident concerning these minutes was a matter of record, and that the judgment of conviction as to both defendants had been affirmed (7 A.D.2d 1017, 184 N.Y.S.2d 386, leave to appeal to Court of Appeals thereafter denied by a judge of that court). After a colloquy, which covered many pages of the hearing minutes, defendants refused to call any witnesses in support of any of their charges, and the court thereupon dismissed their coram nobis application.
Since the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Van Ryn v. Goland
...that was not available to them (compare People v. Gentile, 96 A.D.2d 950, 951–952, 466 N.Y.S.2d 405 [1983] ; People v. Rodriquez, 14 A.D.2d 917, 918, 221 N.Y.S.2d 532 [1961] ). Considering all of the circumstances, including assurances of impartiality made by Justice Platkin to the parties,......
-
People v. Lewis
...(People v. McDaniel, 168 A.D.2d 926, 928, 565 N.Y.S.2d 334; People v. Basora, 90 A.D.2d 851, 852, 457 N.Y.S.2d 84; People v. Rodriquez, 14 A.D.2d 917, 918, 221 N.Y.S.2d 532; see also, Matter of VonderHeide, 72 N.Y.2d 658, 659, 536 N.Y.S.2d 24, 532 N.E.2d 1252; Annotation, Disqualification o......
-
People v. Jacobson
...Court would not be fair, nor does he claim that the Court would possibly be a material witness. Compare, People v. Rodriguez, 14 A.D.2d 917, 918, 221 N.Y.S.2d 532 (2d Dept. 1961). Moreover, it would also appear that the judge who presided over the trial, as well as the deliberations, should......
-
People v. Luciano
...seeks to call a judge to testify as to a matter of record, the testimony of the court is superfluous (cf. People v. Rodriquez , 14 A.D.2d 917, 221 N.Y.S.2d 532 [2d Dept. 1961] [In a coram nobis application, co-defendants sought recusal of the presiding judge, who was also the trial judge, a......