JONES, DANIEL, PEOPLE v

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 14, 2014·No. KA 10-00076·Published

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

147 KA 10-00076 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DANIEL JONES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

KEVIN J. BAUER, ALBANY, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DONNA A. MILLING OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Penny M. Wolfgang, J.), entered October 26, 2009. The order denied defendant’s motion, pursuant to CPL 440.30 (1-a), for the performance of forensic DNA testing on specified evidence.

It is hereby ORDERED that the case is held, the decision is reserved and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Erie County, for a determination in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order denying his pro se motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 and 440.30 (1-a) seeking DNA testing on a rape kit, underwear, an “excised piece of cloth taken from the victim’s underwear,” swabs, slides, “hair, clothing or shaking from the victim’s clothing,” and a washcloth (see generally CPL 450.10 [5]). Preliminarily, we note that the notice of appeal incorrectly recites that defendant appeals from a judgment. As a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, however, we treat the notice of appeal as valid (see CPL 460.10 [6]; People v Mitchell, 93 AD3d 1173, 1173, lv denied 19 NY3d 999). The order addressed only that part of defendant’s motion requesting testing on the washcloth, however, and Supreme Court’s failure to rule on the other parts of defendant’s motion “ ‘cannot be deemed a denial thereof’ ” (People v Stewart, 111 AD3d 1395, 1396; see People v Santana, 101 AD3d 1664, 1664, lv denied 20 NY3d 1103; see generally People v Concepcion, 17 NY3d 192, 197- 198). We therefore hold the case, reserve decision and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a determination on the remainder of defendant’s motion.

Entered: February 14, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JONES, DANIEL, PEOPLE v, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

JONES, DANIEL, PEOPLE v (JONES, DANIEL, PEOPLE v) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Concepcion
953 N.E.2d 779 (New York Court of Appeals, 2011)
People v. Mitchell
93 A.D.3d 1173 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Santana
101 A.D.3d 1664 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Stewart
111 A.D.3d 1395 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)