Case ID: misc2d_10/html/0103-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Judge Burke, Judge Fuld,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Lawrence E. Johnson, Defendant.
    County Court, Dutchess County,
    March 31, 1958.
    
      Lawrence E. Johnson, defendant in person.
    
      Raymond C. Baratta, District Attorney (Eugene F. Frink of counsel), for plaintiff.
   Judge Burke,

in the majority opinion, stated that a writ of error coram nobis may not be invoked to show an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The defendant’s claim was reviewable upon an appeal from the judgment of conviction. "Where the alleged error is evident and does not affect the validity of the judgment of conviction, but only the validity of the sentence, coram nobis does not lie. Judge Burke further stated that to allow relief to the defendant by way of coram nobis, would be to disregard the purpose of the historic writ. It is an emergency measure enabling a defendant to void the effects of a conviction — when all other avenues of judicial relief are closed to him. The court further stated that coram nobis may not be utilized as an alternative remedy to appeal, motion in arrest of judgment, motion to withdraw plea, or habeas corpus. (People v. Kendricks, 300 N. Y. 544; People v. Gersewitz, 294 N. Y. 163, 167; Paterno v. Lyons, 334 U. S. 314; People ex rel. Wachowicz v. Martin, 293 N. Y. 361.)

Judge Fuld,

concurring in the majority decision stated that we have Expanded the scope of the writ, beyond its original purpose, to include cases in which a second or fourth felony offender asserts the invalidity of a prior conviction even though such invalidity is not ascribable to an error of fact not apparent on the record. That departure however, furnishes no sound basis for extending it further to cover a situation such as is here presented.

In the instant case, the court is in accord with the decision in the Sullivan case and concludes that a hearing should be denied and defendant’s petition for a writ of error coram nobis should be dismissed.

Submit order accordingly, with copy forwarded to defendant.