Michael F. Dillon, District Attorney ( Arthur G. Baumeister and Barbara M. Sims of counsel), for respondent. Order affirmed (see People v. Nicholson, 11 N.Y.2d 1067; People v. Jones, 11 N.Y.2d 1070; People v. Howard, 12 N.Y.2d 65). No opinion. Concur: Chief Judge DESMOND and Judges DYE, FULD, VAN VOORHIS, BURKE, SCILEPPI and BERGAN.
In a coram nobis proceeding, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered March 30, 1965, on reargument, as denied without a hearing his application to vacate a judgment of said court, entered April 10, 1964 on his plea of guilty, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and imposing sentence. Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed ( People v. Dash, 16 N.Y.2d 493; People v. Griffin, 16 N.Y.2d 508; People v. Rogers, 15 N.Y.2d 690; People v. Nicholson, 11 N.Y.2d 1067; People v. Jones, 11 N.Y.2d 1070). Beldock, P.J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
In this State no duty devolves upon the police or prosecutor, incident to their interrogation of any person after arrest but prior to arraignment, to advise him of his right to remain silent and of his right to counsel "even where it appears that such person has become the target of the investigation and stands in the shoes of an accused" ( People v. Gunner, 15 N.Y.2d 226, 233). The issue as to whether this defendant's confession was illegally obtained was waived by his plea of guilty ( People v. Nicholson, 11 N.Y.2d 1067; People v. Fish, 11 N.Y.2d 1069; People v. Jones, 11 N.Y.2d 1070; People v. McDonald, 20 A.D.2d 907). Brennan, Acting P.J., Hill, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
The record shows defendant was represented by an attorney at the time of pleading and at the time of sentence. In my opinion the issue as to whether the plea was illegally obtained was waived by the plea of guilty. (See People v. Nicholson, 11 N.Y.2d 1067; People v. Jones, 11 N.Y.2d 1070.) Accordingly, I dissent and vote to affirm.
The foregoing claims are not within the orbit for coram nobis relief. ( People v. Fairfield, 16 A.D.2d 992; People v. Sullivan, 3 N.Y.2d 196; People v. Wurzler, 278 App. Div. 608. ) The contentions that the plea of guilty was made as a result of the court's adverse rulings on the admissibility of the alleged coerced confessions, and that because of such introduction thereof, the defendant was subjected to pressure to change his plea constitute no legal basis to grant a writ of error coram nobis, and do not entitle defendant to a hearing. ( People v. Jones, 11 N.Y.2d 1070.) The defendant-petitioner subtly complains that he was advised by his counsel to plead guilty.
His motion for a writ of error coram nobis was denied upon the authority of People v. Nicholson ( supra). In the third case, decided on the same day ( People v. Jones, 11 N.Y.2d 1070), the defendant pleaded guilty after the close of the People's case. His motion for a writ of error coram nobis, which was also based upon similar grounds, was denied upon the authority of People v. Nicholson ( supra).
In a Per Curiam opinion the Court of Appeals said (p. 1068): "The issue as to whether the confession was illegally obtained is waived by the guilty plea." (See, also, People v. Fish, 11 N.Y.2d 1069; People v. Jones, 11 N.Y.2d 1070.) The facts do not support defendant's third contention.