Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Arthur McClain, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph King, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1973-03-23
Citations: 32 N.Y.2d 697
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Arthur McClain, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph King, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 32
Pages: 697–703

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Arthur McClain, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph King, Appellant.
Argued January 11,1973; reargued March 22,1973;
decided March 23,1973.
Charles Sibetta, Henrietta M. Wolfgang and Nathaniel A. Barrell for Arthur McClain, appellant.
Henrietta M. Wolfgang and Nathaniel A. Barrell for Joseph King, appellant.
Michael F. Dillon, District Attorney (Richard M. Mancuso and Marshall L. Goldstein of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
In each case the defendant on sentencing asserted his innocence of the crime to which he had only a short time before pleaded guilty. Under these circumstances, namely, where prompt application is made, ' ' the court should be quick to offer the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea and at the very least conduct a hearing. Such opportunities offered will squelch the faker and protect the truly misguided ones ". (People v. Nixon, 21 N Y 2d 338, at p. 355.) The courts in each of these cases should have at least held a hearing on the motion to withdraw the plea, on the basis of which to make an informed determination in accordance with the principles laid down in Nixon. Although usually necessary in the normal case we do not say a hearing is always necessary. (Cf. People v. Allen, 32 N Y 2d 693 [also decided today]; People v. Dixon, 29 N Y 2d 55.)