People v. Smith
Decision Date | 05 December 1951 |
Citation | 202 Misc. 694 |
Parties | The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff,<BR>v.<BR>Frederick Smith, Defendant. |
Court | New York District Court |
Miles F. McDonald, District Attorney (William I. Siegel of counsel), for plaintiff.
Nathan R. Schor for defendant.
This is a proceeding in the nature of coram nobis. A hearing has been held at which time the defendant and his counsel asserted that no factual issue was raised. The defendant relies solely on the question of law presented.
The defendant was indicted for the crimes of grand larceny in the second degree and for criminally receiving the same property. He was found guilty of both crimes by a jury. On January 12, 1934, he was sentenced for both crimes to the penitentiary. No appeal was taken.
Since his conviction aforesaid, he was sentenced as a second felony offender in another county. If successful in this proceeding, he must be resentenced for the subsequent crime as a first offender.
There is no doubt that a defendant cannot be guilty of stealing and receiving the same property. Whatever uncertainty existed on that score has been settled by the decision in People v. Daghita (301 N.Y. 223).
The defendant contends that such a conviction is absolutely void and therefore a violation of due process. The People contend that this is a mistake of law reviewable on appeal but not by coram nobis.
In People ex rel. Wachowicz v. Martin (293 N.Y. 361) the defendant pleaded guilty to attempted grand larceny under an indictment charging him with receiving stolen property. He challenged the conviction on habeas corpus contending that larceny is not "necessarily included" in receiving. Chief Judge LEHMAN stated (pp. 365-366):
A similar situation was presented in Matter of Lyons v. Fisher (297 N.Y. 617). There too, the defendant pleaded to attempted grand larceny under an indictment charging him with receiving. Later upon his conviction of another felony, he was sentenced on the basis of his grand larceny plea as a second felony offender. He brought coram nobis proceedings to vacate the earlier judgment. When the court indicated it would grant such application, a writ of prohibition was sought. The memorandum prepared from appeal papers before the Court of Appeals in sustaining the writ read: ."
In People v. Sadness (300 N.Y. 69, 73-74) the court stated: without adequate remedy †...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Mason
...occurred at the trial; coram nobis is, therefore, not available. See People v. Buck, 6 A.D.2d 528, 179 N.Y.S.2d 1007; People v. Smith, 202 Misc. 694, 108 N.Y.S.2d 703; People v. Seymour, Co.Ct., 161 N.Y.S.2d 261; People v. Fanning, Co.Ct., 73 N.Y.S.2d 65; 24 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1606b, p. ......
-
People v. Moore
...was against the weight of evidence has never been a ground for the issuance of a writ of error coram nobis. People v. Smith, 108 N.Y.S.2d 703, p. 706, 202 Misc. 694; People v. DeGroat, 13 A.D.2d 557, 211 N.Y.S.2d The petition is in all respects denied. No issue of fact requiring a hearing a......
-
People v. Blair
...an error of law appears on the face of the record, coram nobis is not available. (People v. Sadness, 300 N.Y. 69. See, also, People v. Smith, 202 Misc. 694; People v. Erhart, 197 Misc. 380; People v. Kendricks, 190 Misc. 1058, affd. 273 App. Div. 998, affd. 300 N.Y. 544; People v. Guber, 20......
- Statini v. State of New York