State v. Piracci, A--238
| Decision Date | 29 June 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. A--238,A--238 |
| Citation | 14 N.J.Super. 319,82 A.2d 213 |
| Parties | STATE v. PIRACCI. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Michael Piracci, pro se, for appellant.
Francis V. D. Lloyd, Acting Pros., Bergen County, Hackensack, and Paul T. Huckin, Deputy Atty. Gen., of New Jersey, for respondent.
Before Judges JACOBS, EASTWOOD and BIGELOW.
The opinion of the court was delivered
The defendant was indicted, entered a plea of guilty, sought unsuccessfully to withdraw the plea, and was sentenced on March 16, 1949. He did not appeal but on September 11, 1950 he filed a petition for writ of Habeas corpus which alleged, among other matters, that his plea of guilty was not 'voluntarily and understandingly made' and its withdrawal should have been permitted, and that he was not 'adequately and properly' represented by counsel. The lower court denied his petition without hearing and he has appealed, In forma pauperis, from its action.
The petition and its annexed documents indicate that on January 12, 1949 the defendant pleaded not guilty and wished to represent himself because he had 'no money' for an attorney. The defendant was then remanded to jail and the matter was set for trial on February 28, 1949. On that date the defendant stated that he thought an attorney was being assigned to him but the court expressed its recollection that the defendant had stated that he did not wish an attorney and would represent himself. The assistant prosecutor then asked the defendant whether he still wished to go to trial or was prepared to enter a plea, but without awaiting any answer by the defendant the court stated that it would not accept a plea without assigning counsel. Thereupon the assistant prosecutor recommended that Mr. Myers be assigned by the court to represent the defendant and that was done. Mr. Myers, who was then in the courtroom conferred immediately with the defendant, withdrew the earlier plea of not guilty, and entered a plea of guilty on the same day. The defendant was again remanded to jail to await sentence which was fixed for March 9, 1949. On March 9 the date for sentencing was adjourned until March 16, 1949, Mr. Myers withdrew as counsel, and Mr. Okin was substituted in his stead. On March 16, 1949 Mr. Okin applied to withdraw the plea of guilty, enter a plea of not guilty, and thereafter proceed to trial, but this application was denied and the defendant was sentenced.
In its latter opinion dated November 2, 1950 the lower court acknowledged that there may have been a misunderstanding on January 12, 1949 and the assignment of counsel immediately before trial on February 28, 1949 may have been unfair but found that the defendant had 'understandingly authorized' Mr. Myers to withdraw his carlier plea and enter a guilty plea and had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Worbetz v. Goodman
...in the procedural protection of legal and constitutional rights, particularly those involving human freedom. State v. Piracci, 14 N.J.Super. 319, 82 A.2d 213 (App.Div.1951); State v. Ballard, 15 N.J.Super. 417, 83 A.2d 539 (App.Div.1951), affirmed 9 N.J. 402, 88 A.2d 537 (1952); State v. Cy......
-
17 Club, Inc., In re, A--186
...Cf. Clark v. State, 57 N.J.L. 489, 31 A. 979 (Sup.Ct.1895), affirmed 58 N.J.L. 383, 34 A. 3 (E. & A.1895); State v. Piracci, 14 N.J.Super. 319, 82 A.2d 213 (App.Div.1951); State v. Pometti, 23 N.J.Super. 516, 93 A.2d 409 (App.Div.1952). Our courts do not after the imposition of sentence int......
-
State v. Pometti
...of a sound judicial discretion, the appellate court will not hesitate to reverse. * * *' In the case of State v. Piracci, 14 N.J.Super. 319, 82 A.2d 213, 214, (App.Div.1951), defendant contested the denial of his application to withdraw his former plea of guilty and to substitute therefor h......
-
State v. Rose, 8943
...petitioner's pleas of Non vult to each of the three indictments were understandingly and voluntarily given. See State v. Piracci, 14 N.J.Super. 319, 82 A.2d 213 (App.Div.1951). Regarding petitioner's claim as to the time when Mr. Santa Maria was discharged as his counsel, this court finds a......