Opinion

People v. Hardin

  • 67 A.D.2d 12
  • 414 N.Y.S.2d 320
  • 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10068
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Filed
Mar 15, 1979
Status
Published
Author
Markewich
On the bench
Markewich, Silverman
Cited by
9 cases

stating that, in the absence of fraud, the court has no power to set aside a plea without the defendant’s consent

How later courts described this case

  • stating that, in the absence of fraud, the court has no power to set aside a plea without the defendant’s consent
  • stating that, in the absence of fraud, the court may not set aside a plea without the defendant’s consent
  • noting that a plea of guilty is a conviction

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Markewich, J.

(concurring in part). We need not be bothered by considerations of the court’s authority, in the circumstances depicted in the majority opinion, unilaterally to vacate defendant-appellant’s plea of guilty. While I agree that the second plea of guilty should be vacated as coerced by the situation in which defendant found himself — it should be said, by his own intended deception — I believe that the proceedings should be rolled back to the point where defendant-appellant, faced with discovery of his deception, told the court that he had been misled by his attorney, that he wished him to be relieved so that he might be advised by another lawyer, and requested an adjournment for that purpose. That adjournment *19 should have been granted in the proper exercise of discretion. This whole sorry mess and resultant delay might well have been avoided had discretion not been abused at this point. The adjournment should have been granted to enable defendant, at this crucial point, to be advised by a lawyer in whom he had confidence. Pique resulting from unexpected developments should not be the operative force by which judicial decisions are fashioned.

Murphy, P. J., Evans and Fein, JJ., concur with Silver-man, J.; Markewich, J., concurs in part in an opinion.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on November 29, 1976, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the plea of guilty of robbery in the first degree and the sentence thereon vacated, and defendant’s plea of guilty of robbery in the second degree reinstated, and the matter remanded to the Supreme Court, Bronx County, for resentence of the defendant.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.