People v. Rozzell
| Decision Date | 07 July 1967 |
| Citation | 229 N.E.2d 452,20 N.Y.2d 712,282 N.Y.S.2d 775 |
| Parties | , 229 N.E.2d 452 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. David ROZZELL, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Gretchen White Oberman and Anthony F. Marra, New York City, for appellant.
Aaron E. Koota, Dist. Atty. (William I. Siegel, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.
Defendant pleaded guilty to robbery, third degree, on October 1, 1963, after some preliminary discussion with the Judge as to his guilt or innocence. He was represented by counsel. Immediately after the plea, the Judge questioned defendant on the record at some length as to his participation in the crime, which defendant admitted. Prior to imposition of sentence on December 16, 1963, defendant moved to withdraw his plea of guilty on the ground he was not guilty. His counsel did not join in the motion and seems not to have favored it.
The Judge directed a hearing on this motion in which the defendant, his lawyer and the assistant district attorney were each 'called by the court', as the record shows, and were examined by the Judge. In the course of this examination, conversations between counsel and defendant relating to defendant's guilt were inquired into.
Although apparently counsel still continued to represent him, defendant was at this critical stage of the proceeding--whether the motion to withdraw the plea should have been granted or denied--deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. It is difficult, if not impossible, for counsel effectively to represent the right of the accused to have judicial consideration given to his motion to withdraw a plea of guilty, where counsel is himself called as a witness in an inquiry which penetrates deeply into the intraprofessional relationship, especially where counsel apparently did not favor the making of the motion. (Ferguson v. State of Georgia, 365 U.S. 570, 81 S.Ct. 756, 5 L.Ed.2d 783; People v. Wilson, 15 N.Y.2d 634, 255 N.Y.S.2d 675, 203 N.E.2d 925.) In these circumstances it would seem to have been needful to assign other counsel.
The judgment should be reversed and a new hearing ordered on the question whether defendant's motion to withdraw his plea should have been granted or denied.
Judgment reversed and a new hearing ordered in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Baldi
...The cases cited by the defendant (see People v. Kennedy, 22 N.Y.2d 280, 292 N.Y.S.2d 625, 239 N.E.2d 510; People v. Rozzell, 20 N.Y.2d 712, 282 N.Y.S.2d 775, 229 N.E.2d 452; People v. McGrath, 31 A.D.2d 944, 298 N.Y.S.2d 877) involved defendants seeking to withdraw guilty pleas because thei......
-
Guzman v. Sabourin
...that implicates the attorney's own conduct. See Lopez v. Scully, 58 F.3d 38, 40 (2d Cir.1995); People v. Rozzell, 20 N.Y.2d 712, 713, 229 N.E.2d 452, 453, 282 N.Y.S.2d 775 (N.Y.1967) (recognizing the difficulty "for counsel effectively to represent the right of the accused to have judicial ......
-
People v. Padgett
...U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811; cf. People v. Kennedy, 22 N.Y.2d 280, 292 N.Y.S.2d 625, 239 N.E.2d 510; People v. Rozzell, 20 N.Y.2d 712, 282 N.Y.S.2d 775, 229 N.E.2d 452; People v. Driscoll, 30 A.D.2d 793, 292 N.Y.S.2d 703). Defendant was thus entitled to counsel solely interested i......
-
People v. Brundage
...court to take notice of the extent to which defendant was then effectively represented by counsel". (See, also, People v. Rozzell, 20 N.Y.2d 712, 282 N.Y.S.2d 775, 229 N.E.2d 452.) On this record it is manifest that the judgment of conviction should be reversed, the motion granted and the d......