People ex rel. Armstrong v. Hanslmaier

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Armstrong v. Hanslmaier

211 A.D.2d 938, 621 N.Y.S.2d 947, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 222

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 12, 1995·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Kane, J.), entered May 31, 1994 in Sullivan County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, after a hearing.

Petitioner’s contentions, which regard the legality of the indictment upon which he was convicted and the alleged failure of the trial court to decide a motion to dismiss on [939] speedy trial grounds, could have been raised on direct appeal or in a motion pursuant to CPL article 440. In fact, petitioner concedes that the issue as to the indictment was the subject of such a motion, which was denied. Habeas corpus is generally not an appropriate remedy under such circumstances and the facts of this case do not merit a departure from traditional orderly procedure. We have considered petitioner’s other contentions and find them to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, White, Casey and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Kane, J.), entered May 31, 1994 in Sullivan County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, after a hearing.

Petitioner’s contentions, which regard the legality of the indictment upon which he was convicted and the alleged failure of the trial court to decide a motion to dismiss on [939] speedy trial grounds, could have been raised on direct appeal or in a motion pursuant to CPL article 440. In fact, petitioner concedes that the issue as to the indictment was the subject of such a motion, which was denied. Habeas corpus is generally not an appropriate remedy under such circumstances and the facts of this case do not merit a departure from traditional orderly procedure. We have considered petitioner’s other contentions and find them to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, White, Casey and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

People ex rel. Armstrong v. Hanslmaier, 211 A.D.2d 938, 621 N.Y.S.2d 947, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 222 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

211 A.D.2d 938 (People ex rel. Armstrong v. Hanslmaier) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related