People v. Schofield
| Decision Date | 13 October 1970 |
| Citation | 35 A.D.2d 696,314 N.Y.S.2d 612 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Carl SCHOFIELD, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
B. N. Lipshie, New York City, for respondent.
L. B. Oliver, Jr., New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Before McGIVERN, J.P., and MARKEWICH, STEUER and TILZER, JJ.
Order (Backer, J.) entered March 31, 1969, New York County, denying defendant's application for a writ of error Coram nobis, without a hearing, unanimously reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, and the matter remanded for a hearing on defendant's claim that he was unconstitutionally denied counsel in a 1934 Maryland conviction which formed the basis for his sentence as a third-felony offender. Initially, it should be noted that the denial of a prior Coram nobis application, without a hearing, was not a bar to the instant application because of the allegation of new facts presented to the Court which were not available on the prior application (see People v. Ramsey, 23 N.Y.2d 656, 295 N.Y.S.2d 338, 242 N.E.2d 488 reversing 28 A.D.2d 1101, 284 N.Y.S.2d 316; People v. Corso, 17 A.D.2d 939, 234 N.Y.S.2d 1). The District Attorney has frankly conceded that the record establishes that defendant is entitled to a hearing on his claim that he was improperly deprived of counsel in a proceeding which formed a predicate for his third felony offender sentence. Moreover, the record demonstrates that 'good cause' has been shown for defendant's failure to make a timely challenge to the constitutionality of the previous conviction at the time the information was filed (see section 1943 of the former Penal Law). Under the circumstances, defendant should be afforded a hearing to permit him to prove his claim.
Order filed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Middleton
...Proceedings. These papers sufficiently document defendant's claim and, therefore, a hearing is mandated (People v. Schofield, 35 A.D.2d 696, 314 N.Y.S.2d 612 (1st Dept., 1970); see also: People v. Chait, 7 A.D.2d 399, 183 N.Y.S.2d 494 (1st Dept.) aff'd 6 N.Y.2d 855, 188 N.Y.S.2d 560, 160 N.......