From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Allen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 28, 1963
18 A.D.2d 840 (N.Y. App. Div. 1963)

Opinion

January 28, 1963


In a coram nobis proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the former County Court, Kings County, dated April 10, 1962, which denied, without a hearing, his application to vacate a judgment of said court, rendered March 12, 1957 after a jury trial, convicting him of first degree robbery, second degree assault, and second degree grand larceny, and sentencing him to serve a term of 10 to 20 years, plus 5 to 10 years for being armed. The additional punishment was struck out on appeal ( 5 A.D.2d 696). Order affirmed. At defendant's first trial in October, 1956, a jury was impaneled and sworn and opening statements were made. However, a mistrial was declared before any evidence was given or any witness sworn. The question of former jeopardy was not raised at defendant's second trial in January, 1957. The present application for coram nobis is made on the ground that the 1957 conviction is void because of double jeopardy. It is not necessary here to determine whether a prisoner is placed in jeopardy when a jury has been examined and sworn, and evidence given ( People ex rel. Meyer v. Warden, 269 N.Y. 426; Matter of Nolan v. Court of Gen. Sessions, 15 A.D.2d 78, 82; King v. People, 5 Hun 297, 299); or whether he is placed in jeopardy as soon as the jury has been impaneled and sworn ( People ex rel. Rosebrough v. Casey, 251 App. Div. 867; People ex rel. Bullock v. Hayes, 166 App. Div. 507, 510, affd. 215 N.Y. 172; 1 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations [8th ed.], pp. 686-687). Regardless of which rule may be correct, the defendant here waived his right to argue double jeopardy when he failed to raise the question at his second trial ( People v. Cignarale, 110 N.Y. 23, 29; People v. McGrath, 202 N.Y. 445; People ex rel. Hetenyi v. Johnston, 10 A.D.2d 121). In any event, the question of double jeopardy was a matter of record, and matters of record cannot be a basis for relief by way of coram nobis ( People v. Sadness, 300 N.Y. 69; People v. Kendricks, 300 N.Y. 544). Beldock, P.J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Allen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 28, 1963
18 A.D.2d 840 (N.Y. App. Div. 1963)
Case details for

People v. Allen

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOHN ALLEN, Appellant

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

Date published: Jan 28, 1963

Citations

18 A.D.2d 840 (N.Y. App. Div. 1963)
238 N.Y.S.2d 70

Citing Cases

People v. De Mino

In this coram nobis proceeding appellant seeks to vacate the 1951 conviction on the ground that his retrial…

People v. Willis

Further grounds raised by defendant are without merit. The challenge to the sufficiency of the allegations of…