New York Court of Appeals, 1967

People v. Rozzell

New York Court of Appeals · Decided July 7, 1967

20 N.Y.2d 712; 229 N.E.2d 452; 282 N.Y.S.2d 775; 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1302

Cases that cite this one

47 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Guzman v. Sabourin (District Court, S.D. New York 2000)
People v. Pointer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
People v. Welsh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
People v. Santana (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
People v. Brundage (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
People v. Fredericks (N.Y. 2025)
People v. Hussain (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
People v. Faulkner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
People v. Hecht (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
People v. Mitchell (N.Y. 2013)
People v. Christian (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Christian (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Grace (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
People v. Hutchinson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
People v. Wilson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
People v. Foxworth (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
People v. Nelson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
People v. Williams (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
People v. Walton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
People v. Burgos (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
People v. Price (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
People v. Caccavale (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
People v. Hiladrio (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
People v. Burgos (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
People v. Stevens (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Memorandum. Defendant pleaded guilty to robbery, third degree, on October 1, 1963, after some preliminary discussion with the Judge as to his guilt or innocence. He was represented by counsel. Immediately after the plea, the Judge questioned defendant on the record at some length as to his participation in the crime, which defendant admitted. Prior to imposition of sentence on December 16, 1963, defendant moved to withdraw his plea of guilty on the ground he was not guilty. His counsel did not join in the motion and seems not to have favored it.

The Judge directed a hearing on this motion in which the defendant, his lawyer and the assistant district attorney were *713each ‘1 called by the court ’ ’, as the record shows, and were examined by the Judge. In the course of this examination, conversatians between counsel and defendant relating to defendant’s guilt were inquired into.

Although apparently counsel still continued to represent him, defendant was at this critical stage of the proceeding — whether the motion to withdraw the plea should have been granted or denied — deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. It is difficult, if not impossible, for counsel effectively to represent the right of the accused to have judicial consideration given to his motion to withdraw a plea of guilty, where counsel is himself called as a witness in an inquiry which penetrates deeply into the intraprofessional relationship, especially where counsel apparently did not favor the making of the motion. (Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 U. S. 570; People v. Wilson, 15 N Y 2d 634.) In these circumstances it would seem to have been needful to assign other counsel.

The judgment should be reversed and a new hearing ordered on the question whether defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea should have been granted or denied.

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Bergan, Keating and Breitel concur in memorandum; Judges Van Voorhis and Scileppi dissent and vote to affirm.

Judgment reversed and a new hearing ordered in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.