Opinion
December 20, 1965
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT. Defendant's allegations with respect to his interrogation without counsel are insufficient to entitle him to a hearing upon his application in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis, particularly so in the light of the subsequent proceedings in the action. ( People v. Howard, 12 N.Y.2d 65.) Neither do his papers indicate any facts respecting his confession and his subsequent plea of guilty to a reduced charge which would remove the case from the ambit of the rule applied in People v. Nicholson ( 11 N.Y.2d 1067, cert. den. 371 U.S. 929). Likewise insufficient to require a hearing are his allegations in respect of the court's choice of counsel ( People v. Brabson, 9 N.Y.2d 173, 180-181, cert. den. 366 U.S. 930, 369 U.S. 879) and in respect of the supposed inadequacy of the representation afforded him ( People v. Weires, 10 N.Y.2d 1017, cert. den. 370 U.S. 954). Order affirmed. Gibson, P.J., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.