On April 27, 1942, the defendant appearing with counsel pleaded not guilty to the following indictments: First count, robbery 1st degree; Second count, grant larceny 2nd degree; Third count, assault 2nd degree; Fourth count, robbery 1st degree; Fifth county, grand larceny 1st degree; Sixth count, assault 2nd degree; Seventh count, attempted rape 1st degree; Eighth count, assault 2nd degree. 2) Indictment No. 28704b–First count, attempted rape 1st degree; Second count, attempted rape 2nd degree; Third count, abduction; Fourth count, assault 2nd degree. 3) Indictment No. 28704c–First count, robbery 1st degree; Second count, assault 2nd degree; Third count, grand larceny 1st degree.4) Indictment No. 28704d–First count, robbery 1st degree; Second count, grand larceny 1st degree; Third count, assault 2nd degree; Fourth count, sodomy; Fifth count, assault 2nd degree.5) Indictment No. 28704e–First count, sodomy; Second count, assault 2nd degree.
A Kings Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, on May 2, 1942, a motion to have the criminal defendant committed to Kings County Hospital for psychiatric examination was denied. A similar motion was made and denied on May 4, 1942, by the Judge who at the same time granted over the objection of the defendant the District Attorney’s motion to consolidate the five indictments pursuant to section 279 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On May 11, 1942, the defendant pleaded guilty before the same judge to each count of indictment numbers 28704a, 28704b, 28704c, 28704d and 28704e, and was then committed to Kings County Hospital for psychiatric examination. On May 25, 1942, the psychiatric report, finding the defendant not insane, not mentally defective, and capable of understanding the charge and proceedings against him and of making his defense, was confirmed and the Judge sentenced the defendant to Prison as follows:
1) On Indictment No. 28704a, for a term of not less than 15 years and not more than 30 years on counts 1, 2 and 3; for a term of not less than 15 and not more than 30 years on counts 4, 5 and 6; and for a term of not less than 5 years and not more than 10 years on counts 7 and 8.; 2) On Indictment No. 28704b, for a term of not less than 5 years and not more than 10 years on counts 1, 2, 3 and 4. This sentence to run consecutively with the expiration of the sentence imposed on indictment No. 28704a.; 3) On Indictment No. 28704c, for a term of not less than 15 years and not more than 30 years on counts 1, 2 and 3. This sentence to run consecutively at the expiration of the sentence imposed on indictment No. 28704b (and indictment No. 28704a); 4) On Indictment No. 28704d, for a term of not less than 7 1/2 years and not more than 15 years on counts 1, 2 and 3, and for a term of not less than 10 years and not more than 20 years on counts 4 and 5. This sentence to run consecutively at the expiration of the sentence imposed on indictment 28704c (and indictment numbers 28704a and 28704b); 5) On Indictment No. 28704e, for a term of not less than 10 years and not more than 20 years on counts 1 and 2. This sentence to run consecutively at the expiration of the sentence imposed on indictment No. 28704d (and indictment numbers 28704a, 28704b and 28704c).
The sentence on each indictment to be served consecutively totaled not less than 82 years, 6 months and not more than 165 years. There was no appeal from the judgments of conviction nor from the Judge’s order denying a motion dated December 22, 1954, to vacate and set aside the sentences upon the ground that they were cumulative, illegal and excessive. Kings Criminal Lawyer said that, the defendant now moves in the nature of a writ of error coramnobis to vacate and set aside the aforesaid judgments of conviction and sentences upon the following grounds: 1) that the motions made on behalf of defendant for commitment to Kings County Hospital for psychiatric observation were improperly denied; 2) that the order consolidating the indictments was illegal, erroneous and improper; 3) that ‘the indictment 28704a was void for misjoinder for the counts of robbery and rape’; and 4) that the court should not have accepted the pleas of guilty because of his mental condition at that time.
The issue in this case is whether defendant’s motion to vacate and set aside the judgment of convictions should be granted.
The Court held that the first three grounds alleged by the defendant are not a basis for coramnobis relief inasmuch as they refer to matters of record and could have been raised on an appeal from the judgments of conviction. The fourth ground presented a triable issue to determine whether or not he was mentally capable of entering a plea of guilty. I granted a hearing at which the defendant alone testified. He presented no medical testimony or records. He never interposed the defense of insanity. I find that the defendant has failed to sustain the burden of proof which is his under the law. He has not proved his contentions by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence. ‘After a defendant has been convicted on plea of guilty or after trial, the People are not required to assume the burden again of establishing that what was done was regular in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Accordingly, the court held that the application for a writ of error coramnobis is, therefore, denied. Let the District Attorney submit an order to that effect and serve a copy of it together with notice of entry thereof, by mail, on the defendant’s counsel and on the defendant at the institution where he is presently confined.
Are you facing several criminal charges or convictions? You will need the help of a Kings Criminal Attorney and/or Kings Grand Larceny Attorney at Stephen Bilkis and Associates in order to properly defend your case. Call us.