From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Samet

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 21, 1951
279 App. Div. 767 (N.Y. App. Div. 1951)

Opinion

December 21, 1951.


Proceeding in the nature of coram nobis to vacate a judgment of the County Court of the County of Queens, rendered December 20, 1926, convicting appellant of the crimes of robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the first degree, and assault in the second degree, upon a plea of guilty, and sentencing him, as a second offender, to a term of life imprisonment. He appeals from an order of said court denying the application. In the light of the allegations by appellant that, despite the fact that the court assigned counsel to represent him before he pleaded guilty, he never saw or received the benefit of counsel, and pleaded guilty without counsel, and that the court did not advise him as to his right to counsel (see Code Crim. Pro., § 308), which allegations are not denied by the People, it may not be said that, on the papers before the court, sufficient grounds for vacatur of the conviction were not stated and that appellant was not entitled to a hearing on the application ( People v. Richetti, 302 N.Y. 290). Order reversed and application granted to the extent that the matter is remitted to the County Court of the County of Queens for further proceedings not inconsistent with the views hereinabove stated. Nolan, P.J., Carswell, Johnston, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Samet

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 21, 1951
279 App. Div. 767 (N.Y. App. Div. 1951)
Case details for

People v. Samet

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WILLIAM PETER SAMET…

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

Date published: Dec 21, 1951

Citations

279 App. Div. 767 (N.Y. App. Div. 1951)

Citing Cases

People v. Dalton

However, this inference does not compel the conclusion that defendant had the benefit of counsel at the…

People v. Alex

No affidavit whatever was submitted by the People, and on this record it cannot be said that defendant's…