Case ID: ny-2d_5/html/0109-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Richard T. Banner, Richard Barnes, Ronald Becker, Gordon Bronson, Willie R. Castle, Richard Chubb, Douglas F. Decker, Alton E. De Forest, Laurence Du Mont, Denny Jordan, William Kane, Brian Mathewson, John Ottoway, Ronald Peck, Ronald Philpott, Daniel P. Rafferty and Steven Roff, Appellants.
    Argued October 14, 1958;
    decided November 13, 1958.
    
    
      Joseph P. Leary and Wayne L. Tyson for appellants.
    I. The informations and depositions were insufficient to give the City Court of Oneonta jurisdiction. (People v. Mulvey, 206 Misc. 771; People v. Zambounis, 251 N. Y. 94; People v. Schultz, 301 N. Y. 495; People v. Ward, 148 Misc. 94; People v. Jacoby, 304 N. Y. 33; People v. Gallo, 206 Misc. 935; People v. Greenberg, 142 Misc. 680; People v. Perry, 265 N. Y. 362; People v. Carcel, 3 N Y 2d 327; People v. Chesnick, 302 N. Y. 58.) II. Defendants were deprived of their constitutional and statutory rights to counsel on arraignment and also to have all further proceedings postponed until they could consult with counsel and obtain legal advice. (People v. Prior, 4 N Y 2d 70.)
    
      Richard J. Bookhout, District Attorney (John J. Steidle of counsel), for respondent.
    I. The Oneonta City Court (Criminal Department) had jurisdiction. (People v. Chambers, 189 Misc. 502; People ex rel. Travis v. Daniels, 182 Misc. 856; People v. Sly, 180 Misc. 96; People v. Carter, 88 Hun 304; People v. Wiechers, 179 N. Y. 459; People ex rel. Schneider v. Hayes, 108 App. Div. 6; People ex rel. Dinsmore v. Keeper of Erie County Penitentiary, 125 App. Div. 137; People v. Patrick, 175 Misc. 997; People v. Skolnick, 200 Misc. 389.) II. Defendants were advised of their constitutional rights. III. The sentence of the Judge was not excessive.
   Per Curiam.

It is settled that a defendant upon his arraignment must be advised not only of his right to counsel, but also of his right to a postponement of the proceedings in order to enable him to obtain and consult with counsel; and, of course, he must be given a reasonable opportunity to ask for counsel and such adjournment before being required to plead to the charge against him (Code Crim. Pro., § 699; see People v. Marincic, 2 N Y 2d 181). And, to render the applicable statutory provisions meaningful and effective, this court recently declared in the Marincic case (2 N Y 2d, at p. 184), the judge presiding “ must make it clear ” that such are the defendant’s rights.

In the cases before us, 17 in number, although the city court judge may have exhibited solicitude for the several defendants and may have told them that they had a right to be represented by counsel, he failed to make it sufficiently clear that they also had the right to a postponement of the proceedings to permit them to obtain and consult with counsel.

The judgments should be reversed and a new trial ordered as to each defendant.

Chief Judge Conway and Judges Desmond, Dye, Fuld, Froessel, Van Voorhis and Burke concur.

Judgments reversed, etc.