Although it is the general rule that coram nobis will not lie to correct errors appearing on the face of the record (People v. Sullivan,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
PEOPLE v. HANNIGAN
7 N.Y.2d 317 (1960)
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Thomas Patrick Hannigan, Appellant.
Court of Appeals of the State of New York.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Argued January 5, 1960.
Decided January 14, 1960.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Chief Judge DESMOND and Judges FULD, BURKE and FOSTER concur in Per Curiam opinion; Judges DYE, FROESSEL and VAN VOORHIS dissent and vote to affirm in the following memorandum: Both defendant and the District Attorney have submitted their conflicting verified statements. Neither party asserts that he has any additional evidence. The record shows the defendant made his present application about seven years after his earlier conviction, following his later conviction for second degree manslaughter and after he had ascertained that the sentencing minutes with respect to the earlier conviction were no longer available. The courts below had the right to disbelieve his claim that a County Judge had substituted an Assistant District Attorney in place of his own attorney — then present in court — at the time of receiving a suspended sentence.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.