People v. Nicholson

New York Court of Appeals

Decided July 6, 1962

New York Court of Appeals · decided 1962-07-06

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently February 1969

4 federal appellate ·

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“A defendant who has knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty may not thereafter attack the judgment of conviction entered thereon by coram nobis or other post-conviction remedy on the ground that he had been coerced into making a confession and that the existence of such coerced confession induced him to enter the plea of guilty. If a defendant desires to contest the voluntariness of his confession, he must do so by pleading not guilty and then raising the point upon the trial; he may not plead guilty and then, years later, at a time when the prosecution is perhaps unable to prove its case, assert his alleged constitutional violation. The issue as to whether the confession was illegally obtained is waived by the guilty plea.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including United States ex rel. Ross v. McMann

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1962-07-06

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1A defendant who has knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty may not thereafter attack the judgment of conviction entered thereon by coram nobis or other post-conviction remedy on the ground that he had been coerced into making a confession and that the existence of such coerced confession induced him to enter the plea of guilty. If a defendant desires to contest the voluntariness of his confession, he must do so by pleading not guilty and then raising the point upon the trial; he may not plead guilty and then, years later, at a time when the prosecution is perhaps unable to prove its case, assert this alleged constitutional violation. The issue as to whether the confession was illegally obtained is waived by the guilty plea. People v. Berger (9 N Y 2d 692) clearly differs from this case in its fact pattern.

¶2Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld, Froessel, Van Voorhis, Burke and Foster concur.

¶3Order affirmed. .