From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Diaz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 20, 1965
24 A.D.2d 1029 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965)

Opinion

December 20, 1965


Motion by defendant for leave to prosecute appeal on original papers and for other relief denied. On February 14, 1964 defendant was convicted of attempted violation of section 1751 of the Penal Law as a felony, and sentenced to a term of 2 1/2 to 5 years. Defendant did not file a timely notice of appeal. As the result of a coram nobis application, an order was made on September 14, 1965 finding that the prison authorities improperly prevented defendant from taking an appeal within the prescribed 30-day period. The Court of Appeals has held that, under these circumstances, the judgment of conviction (even though valid) should be vacated by the trial court and defendant remanded for resentence so that the time for taking an appeal would date from the rendition of the new judgment. ( People v. Hairston, 10 N.Y.2d 92.) However, the trial court failed to follow the procedure so set forth. Because of this failure of the trial court, defendant on September 17, 1965 served a notice of appeal from the judgment of February 14, 1964. This notice of appeal is not timely and, therefore, there is no valid appeal presently pending before this court. The denial of the present motion is without prejudice to a motion for resentence in accordance with the rule in People v. Hairston ( supra). Ughetta, Acting P.J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Diaz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 20, 1965
24 A.D.2d 1029 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965)
Case details for

People v. Diaz

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff, v. HOMERO DIAZ, Defendant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 20, 1965

Citations

24 A.D.2d 1029 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965)

Citing Cases

People v. Ramos

The court's actions were tantamount to a denial of defendant's right to appeal. The statutory right to appeal…