People ex rel. Dixon v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Dixon v. Smith

112 A.D.2d 50, 490 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50702

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 4, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 112 A.D.2d 50 (People ex rel. Dixon v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People ex rel. Dixon v. Smith, 112 A.D.2d 50, 490 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50702 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied relator’s application for a writ of habeas corpus. Relator may not obtain relief in this proceeding for the alleged denial of his right to a speedy trial, especially since he never raised this issue at or before trial (see, People ex rel. LeMon v Mancusi, 31 NY2d 679). His claim of ineffective assistance of counsel does not entitle him to habeas corpus relief (see, People ex rel. Douglas v Vincent, 50 NY2d 901); nor would he be entitled to relief in the nature of coram nobis because his allegations concerning ineffective assistance of counsel are conclusory and are not supported by evidentiary facts entitling him to a hearing (see, People v Session, 34 NY2d 254,255-256). Relator’s other grounds for relief are insufficient since they were raised or could have been on his appeal from the judgment of conviction (see, People ex rel. Douglas v Vincent, 67 AD2d 587, affd 50 NY2d 901, supra). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Kane, J. — habeas corpus.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied relator’s application for a writ of habeas corpus. Relator may not obtain relief in this proceeding for the alleged denial of his right to a speedy trial, especially since he never raised this issue at or before trial (see, People ex rel. LeMon v Mancusi, 31 NY2d 679). His claim of ineffective assistance of counsel does not entitle him to habeas corpus relief (see, People ex rel. Douglas v Vincent, 50 NY2d 901); nor would he be entitled to relief in the nature of coram nobis because his allegations concerning ineffective assistance of counsel are conclusory and are not supported by evidentiary facts entitling him to a hearing (see, People v Session, 34 NY2d 254,255-256). Relator’s other grounds for relief are insufficient since they were raised or could have been on his appeal from the judgment of conviction (see, People ex rel. Douglas v Vincent, 67 AD2d 587, affd 50 NY2d 901, supra). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Kane, J. — habeas corpus.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.2d 50, 490 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-dixon-v-smith-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack