People v. Session
| Decision Date | 12 June 1974 |
| Citation | 357 N.Y.S.2d 409,313 N.E.2d 728,34 N.Y.2d 254 |
| Parties | , 313 N.E.2d 728 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Josh SESSION, III, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Eugene D. Ulterino, Rochester, for appellant.
Jack B. Lazarus, Dist. Atty. (Melvin Bressler, Rochester, of counsel), for respondent.
On this appeal from the denial of Coram nobis relief, we are called upon to consider whether allegations contained in defendant Josh Session's petition and supporting affidavits are sufficient to require a hearing. Session submitted affidavits from three codefendants stating that an Assistant District Attorney had threatened them with increased charges if they testified in Session's behalf. However, the affidavits did not contain the nature of any testimony the codefendants could offer, or how it could be of value to Session.
This showing is not sufficient to entitle Session to a hearing on his Coram nobis application (now a motion to vacate judgment under CPL 440.10, Consol.Laws, c. 11-A). A judgment of conviction is presumed valid, and the party challenging its validity (defendant here) has a burden of coming forward with allegations sufficient to create an issue of fact (People v. Richetti, 302 N.Y. 290, 298, 97 N.E.2d 908, 912). While the production of contrary evidence will satisfy the burden of going forward and eliminate the presumption of regularity from the case (id.), bare allegations are insufficient to carry this evidentiary burden (People v. Spencer, 32 N.Y.2d 446, 346 N.Y.S.2d 225, 299 N.E.2d 656; People v. White, 309 N.Y. 636, 640, 132 N.E.2d 880, 882--883). In a Coram nobis application, it is not enough to make conclusory allegations of ultimate facts; supporting evidentiary facts must be provided. In this case, the defendant must supply the substance of the testimony his potential witnesses would have given and indicate in what way this testimony would have benefited him (accord Indig v. Finkelstein, 23 N.Y.2d 728, 730, 296 N.Y.S.2d 370, 372, 244 N.E.2d 61, 62 ()).
Of course, once the submission of evidentiary facts creates an issue as to the validity of the judgment, the defendant is entitled to a hearing to determine the truth of his allegations, unless his claim has been conclusively refuted by documentary evidence (see People v. White, 309 N.Y. 636, 132 N.E.2d 880, Supra). Here, the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lewis
...conviction bears the “burden of coming forward with sufficient allegations to create an issue of fact” ( People v. Session, 34 N.Y.2d 254, 255, 357 N.Y.S.2d 409, 313 N.E.2d 728 [1974] ). Because the defense failed to provide an affidavit Mr. Jaffe stating the defendant was not advised about......
-
People v. Crimmins
...11, 13, 144 N.E.2d 10, 11; People v. Guariglia, 303 N.Y. 338, 342--343, 102 N.E.2d 580, 582; cf. People v. Session, 34 N.Y.2d 254, 256, 357 N.Y.S.2d 409, 411, 313 N.E.2d 728, 729). The bifurcating principle is that in Coram nobis the judgment is attacked as infirm, while on motion to vacate......
-
People v. Alvarez
...seeking a writ of error coram nobis bears the burden of demonstrating that counsel was ineffective (see People v. Session, 34 N.Y.2d 254, 255-256, 357 N.Y.S.2d 409, 313 N.E.2d 728 [1974] ; see also People v. Arjune, 30 N.Y.3d 347, 357 n. 8, 67 N.Y.S.3d 526, 89 N.E.3d 1207 [2017], cert denie......
-
People v. Vasquez
...conviction" (People v. Waymon, 65 A.D.3d 708, 709, 883 N.Y.S.2d 911 ; see CPL 440.10 ; 440.30[4][d] [i]; People v. Session, 34 N.Y.2d 254, 255–256, 357 N.Y.S.2d 409, 313 N.E.2d 728 ). "Mere conclusory allegations of ultimate facts are insufficient to warrant a hearing" (People v. Waymon, 65......