People v. Williams

• Decision Date: 21 February 1962
• Citation: 225 N.Y.S.2d 333,33 Misc.2d 538
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Robert WILLIAMS, Defendant.
• Court: New York Court of General Sessions

Page 333

225 N.Y.S.2d 333

33 Misc.2d 538

The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Robert WILLIAMS, Defendant.

Court of General Sessions, New York County.

Feb. 21, 1962.

Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty., New York City, by Edward M. Davidowitz, New York City, of counsel, for the People.

Robert Williams, pro se.

THOMAS DICKENS, Judge.

In this handwritten motion for coram nobis relief, defendant advances three reasons why the judgment of conviction, entered upon his plea of guilty in 1948, should be set aside after a hearing.

These alleged reasons are: (a) An unlawful search and seizure; (b) coercion of his confession under constraint of physical force employed by the arresting officer; and (c) fear resulting from the suggestion made by defendant's counsel that defendant would be electrocuted, if he would not plead guilty to murder, second degree. Frightened, he entered such plea.

Considering these reasons in inverse order, I hold:

1. That the suggestion of the change of plea came solely from defendant's counsel; therefore, it was ineffective as an inducement in law. If, on the other hand, the inducement had come from the district attorney, a public officer, in an atmosphere of misconduct or fraud, the law would declare such inducement, if proved, to be illegal. It follows that this reason, in its present state, does not hold water. Eli Frank on Coram Nobis (1954-1960 Cum . Supp.), page 13(36), n. 301[e]. See also, People v. Brim, 22 Misc .2d 335, 199 N.Y.S.2d 744; People v. Cruz, Gen.Sess., 202 N.Y.S.2d 556.

2. The forced confession, assuming it to have been so, had, however, lost its legal vitality as an effective issue after the entering of the plea of guilty by defendant at the request made by counsel of the court. People v. DeBarros, 1 A.D.2d 845, 149 N.Y.S.2d 33; United States v. Sturm, 7 Cir., 180 F.2d 413; People v. Hughes, 10 A.D.2d 990, 204 N.Y.S.2d 85. Besides, the alleged police brutality is not shown to have been the cause of the revised plea. People v. Gonzalez, 15 Misc.2d 438, 182 N.Y.S.2d 142. Then again, a prior motion of like kind had been denied by me. See N.Y. Law Journal, Dec. 13, 1957, p. 8, col. 4. And, no appeal has ever been taken from the order of denial. Furthermore, the present motion includes no "new or additional evidence" to warrant a reconsideration of this phase of the motion. People v. Moore, Gen.Sess., 210 N.Y.S.2d 661.

3. Unreasonable search and seizure, as a reason, also falls by the wayside, in view of defendant's plea of guilty, for 'a conviction based on a voluntary plea of guilty while represented by counsel is a bar to such a post-conviction claim of illegal search and seizure.' People v. Seidenberg, Gen.Sess., 221 N.Y.S.2d 761. See, also, People v. Anderson, 8 A.D.2d 731, 187 N.Y.S.2d 998 (Memo.); People v. Angelet, Gen. Sess., 221 N.Y.S.2d 834.

As essential factors forming the background of my judgment of the quality of defendant's credibihty, I note that on two separate occasions before, defendant had brought two coram nobis motions, each dated July 15, 1955, and December 7, 1955, respectively, and yet nothing was...