(Download) "People State New York v. Joseph P. Mangan" by Supreme Court of New York # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: People State New York v. Joseph P. Mangan
- Author : Supreme Court of New York
- Release Date : January 15, 1962
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 47 KB
Description
Appeal by defendant from judgments of conviction rendered in the County Court of Broome County upon his pleas of guilty. On June 7, 1961 appellant, a member of the Bar, was charged in a 10 count indictment with the crimes of grand larceny, forgery and the violation of section 1292-a of the Penal Law, a misdemeanor. Two days later he was arraigned upon the indictment and entered pleas of not guilty to its counts. He was then represented by counsel who sought an adjournment apparently for the purpose of addressing motions to the sufficiency of the indictment. On September 22, 1961 and before the convention of the next term of the court in which the indictment was triable defendant was rearraigned and in the presence of his attorneys withdrew personally his former pleas of not guilty and entered pleas of guilty to 3 of the 10 counts of the indictment. Its remaining 7 counts were thereupon dismissed on motion of the District Attorney. Pending the receipt of a presentence report from the Probation Department, the case was adjourned to October 27, 1961 for the sentencing of defendant. In the interval between the arraignments both the County Judge and the Special County Judge of Broome County filed certificates of their disqualification to act in the case and the County Judge of Franklin County was designated to hold the court in their stead. His judicial commitments necessitated two further adjournments to November 20, 1961. By formal motion returnable on that date defendant appeared in propria persona and sought to withdraw his pleas of guilty and to substitute pleas of not guilty therefor. After argument the trial court denied his application. In the course of the arraignment on the judgments which immediately followed the denial, defendant was asked by the Clerk, as required, if he had any legal cause to show why judgment should not be pronounced against him. He answered the question propounded in the affirmative and sought to be heard thereon in the chambers of the Presiding Judge because of the confidential nature of the reasons which he proposed to advance against the judgments. With considerable reluctance the court acceded to his request whereupon defendant and the prosecutor conducted extensive arguments