People v. Williams
| Court | New York Court of General Sessions |
| Writing for the Court | THOMAS DICKENS |
| Citation | 225 N.Y.S.2d 333,33 Misc.2d 538 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Robert WILLIAMS, Defendant. |
| Decision Date | 21 February 1962 |
Page 333
v.
Robert WILLIAMS, Defendant.
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.
Page 334
[33 Misc.2d 539] 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Elfe
...an available cause. People v. Hawkins and Jones, Gen .Sess., 32 Misc.2d 821, 224 N.Y.S.2d 457; People v. Williams, Gen.Sess., 33 Misc.2d 538, 225 N.Y.S.2d 333. See also generally, People v. Cruz, Gen.Sess., 202 N.Y.S.2d No accusation of official or misrepresentation is, however, lodged in d......
-
People v. Miller
...seizure has no place in coram nobis as a measure for relief after a plea of guilty and when a defendant has counsel. People v. Williams, 33 Misc.2d 538, 225 N.Y.S.2d 4. The voluntariness of a confession is a point to be raised at the trial; a plea of guilty waives the question of its legali......
-
People v. Bofill
...valid causes for complaint when a defendant, who is represented by an attorney, takes a voluntary plea of guilty. See People v. Williams, 33 Misc.2d 538, 225 N.Y.S.2d 333. See also, Eli Frank on Coram Nobis, p. 96, 5.02[a], n. 32, and the Cum.Supp. thereof; People v. Nicholson, 11 N.Y.2d 10......
-
People v. Harrison
...at that time, represented by an attorney, has had the terminating effect of a waiver vitiating any such contention (People v. Williams, 33 Misc.2d 538, 225 N.Y.S.2d 333, decided by me in accord with relative citations), let alone the negligence of defendant, at the time of the trial, to inf......