People v. Williams
| Decision Date | 05 January 1972 |
| Citation | 278 N.E.2d 651,29 N.Y.2d 882,328 N.Y.S.2d 445 |
| Parties | , 278 N.E.2d 651 PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Leroy WILLIAMS, a/k/a James Dunn, Appellant. PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Alfonzo BELL, Appellant. PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Edward NEELEY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Robert Kasanof, New York City (Barbara A. Shapiro, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellant Williams.
Eugene Gold, Brooklyn (Martin I. Saperstein, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondents in Williams case.
Eugene Gold, Brooklyn (Roger Bennet Adler, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondents in Bell case.
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York City (Neil H. Cogan, New York City, of counsel), for appellant Neeley.
Burton B. Roberts, New York City (Marian Blank Belenky, New York City, of counsel), for respondent in Neeley case.
With respect to the defendant Williams a Montgomery hearing was held and the Supreme Court, Damiani, J., resentenced defendant nunc pro tunc. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 36 A.D.2d 1025, 322 N.Y.S.2d 1009, affirmed and leave to appeal was granted. In the Court of Appeals the defendant asserted that his conviction on plea of guilty should be reversed because he denied his guilt at the time of sentence and that the conviction must be reversed because of absence of minutes of guilty plea.
With respect to the defendant Bell, an appeal was taken from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, Frank L. Gates, J., resentencing the defendant nunc pro tunc. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 36 A.D.2d 406, 321 N.Y.S.2d 212, held that where defendant did not indicate any of the appealable issues he could have raised had his prior guilty plea and sentence minutes been made available, defendant was not entitled to have his judgment of conviction summarily reversed. Leave to appeal was granted. In the Court of Appeals the People contended that where the defendant was convicted on plea of guilty and subsequently resentenced nunc pro tunc to reactivate his right of appeal and the minutes of the time of plea were no longer in existence, such availability, absent showing of appealable grounds, did not entitle defendant to summary reversal.
With respect to the defendant Neeley, a pro se petition for petition for writ of error coram nobis was filed to vacate judgment of the former Bronx County Court, Patterson, J., convicting him on his plea of guilty of crime of robbery in the first...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Harris
...(People v. Smyth, 3 N.Y.2d 184, 164 N.Y.S.2d 737, 143 N.E.2d 922; People v. Bell, 36 A.D.2d 406, 321 N.Y.S.2d 212, affd. 29 N.Y.2d 882, 328 N.Y.S.2d 445, 278 N.E.2d 651; McCormick, Evidence [2d ed], § 343, p 807) were not overcome by substantial evidence to the contrary (People v. Richetti,......
-
People v. Slater
...required to second guess a counsel's trial strategies (see, People v. Bell, 36 A.D.2d 406, 408, 321 N.Y.S.2d 212, affd 29 N.Y.2d 882, 328 N.Y.S.2d 445, 278 N.E.2d 651), or the deliberations of the jury (see, People v. Boettcher, 69 N.Y.2d 174, 180, 513 N.Y.S.2d 83, 505 N.E.2d 594) when the ......
-
Carmel v. Lunney
...219), which is subject to a presumption of regularity (see, People v. Bell, 36 A.D.2d 406, 408, 321 N.Y.S.2d 212, affd. 29 N.Y.2d 882, 328 N.Y.S.2d 445, 278 N.E.2d 651). Plaintiff could have raised his claim of inadequate representation by way of postconviction motion (see, CPL To summarize......
-
People v. Abbott
...regularity attends all judgments of conviction. People v. Bell, 36 A.D.2d 406, 321 N.Y.S.2d 212, aff'd without opinion 29 N.Y.2d 882, 328 N.Y.S.2d 445, 278 N.E.2d 651; McCormick Evidence Section 343 p. 807. The presumption remains until Abbott argues that since the Utah Supreme Court strong......