Published on:

Wants to withdraw guilty plea

The defendant moves by way of coramnobis to vacate and set aside a judgment dated February 3rd, 1958, convicting him, on his own plea of guilty, of the crime of grand larceny in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of not less than one and not more than two years in State Prison. A Kings Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, the defendant frames his present application on the grounds that he was not advised of his right to counsel; that he did not have the aid of counsel at the time of conviction; that he did not understand the nature and consequences of his plea and that when the judgment of conviction was vacated, he should have been granted the option to withdraw his plea of guilty.

A Kings Criminal Lawyer sad that, on April 16th, 1956, the defendant was sentenced to a term of 2 1/2 to 5 years in State Prison, on his own plea of guilty to the crime of grand larceny in the second degree. Thereafter, he made application in the nature of a writ of error coramnobis to vacate that judgment upon the ground that, prior to pleading guilty, an Assistant District Attorney promised him that his sentence would not exceed a term of 1 to 2 years if he cooperated with the authorities in certain matters; that in reliance on that promise, he did cooperate with the authorities but the promise was not kept. At a hearing held, with the consent of the District Attorney, the evidence adduced warranted the granting of his application, and on February 3rd, 1958, the defendant was resentenced to the term of which he now complains. Burglary was not involved.

A Kings Robbery Lawyer said that, the minutes of the proceedings of February 3rd, 1958, disclose that the defendant advised the Court that his former lawyer no longer represented him. That the clerk entered the defendant’s plea of guilty to grand larceny in the second degree and his pedigree was taken; that the defendant waived the two days notice of sentence; that pursuant to the provisions of sec. 480 of the Code Criminal Procedure, the defendant was asked if he had any legal cause why judgment should not be pronounced and he stated that he had no legal cause to show why the judgment of the law should not be imposed upon him; that he was thereupon sentenced to a term of not less than one and not more than two years in State Prison.

The issue in this case is whether defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment of conviction should be vacated on the ground that prior to pleading guilty, the Assistant District Attorney promised him that his sentence would not exceed a term of 1 to 2 years if he cooperated with the authorities in certain matters; that in reliance on that promise, he did cooperate with the authorities but the promise was not kept.

It is well established that a defendant, seeking relief by way of coramnobis is entitled to a hearing unless his claims are conclusively refuted by unquestionable documentary proof. The court finds that the minutes of the proceedings of February 3rd, 1958, conclusively refute the defendant’s allegations and amounts to unquestionable proof to the contrary. In one of the cases decided by the Supreme Court, the court stated: ‘Charges made in coramnobis are subject to the criteria relied upon in all causes to determine where the truth lies. Bare allegations not confirmed by the recorded facts and contrary to the conduct of the defendant and his attorney, are insufficient in law to warrant a granting of a hearing. The defendant is not entitled to a hearing on charges lacking factual support. Due process does not require a court to accept every sworn allegation.’

Accordingly, the court held that, the application to vacate and set aside the judgment of conviction dated February 3rd, 1958, is denied without a hearing. Let the District Attorney submit an order to that effect and serve a copy of it, together with notice of entry, by mail, upon the defendant at the institution where he is presently confined. Submit order.

The rule is that, charges made in coramnobis are subject to the criteria relied upon in all causes to determine where the truth lies. In order to justify such claim there is a need for the assistance of a Kings Criminal Attorney or Kings Grand Larceny Attorney at Stephen Bilkis and Associates. Call us for free consultation.

Contact Information