People ex rel. English v. Follette

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. English v. Follette

33 A.D.2d 562, 306 N.Y.S.2d 399, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3146

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.2d 562 (People ex rel. English v. Follette) 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. English v. Follette, 33 A.D.2d 562, 306 N.Y.S.2d 399, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3146 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

— Motion by appellant pro se to amend remittitur of July 7, 1969 so as to. state therein that constitutional questions were presented but not determined; namely, whether he was deprived of his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of' the United States. Motion granted to- the following extent: decision and order of this court dated July 7, 1969 amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein, there were presented and passed upon- the following constitutional questions, namely, whether relator’s rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments were denied by the alleged incompetency of his assigned trial counsel, by the introduction of evidence obtained by an unlawful search and seizure,- by •the trial court’s failure to charge the various degrees of the crimes charged, by the admission into evidence of a knife without prqper identification, by the alleged inconsistency in his acquittal of one count of assault and his conviction of robbery in the first degree,' and by the failure to give him any Miranda warnings. The. court considered relator’s contentions on these questions and [563]*563determined that none of his constitutional rights were violated. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

— Motion by appellant pro se to amend remittitur of July 7, 1969 so as to. state therein that constitutional questions were presented but not determined; namely, whether he was deprived of his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of' the United States. Motion granted to- the following extent: decision and order of this court dated July 7, 1969 amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein, there were presented and passed upon- the following constitutional questions, namely, whether relator’s rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments were denied by the alleged incompetency of his assigned trial counsel, by the introduction of evidence obtained by an unlawful search and seizure,- by •the trial court’s failure to charge the various degrees of the crimes charged, by the admission into evidence of a knife without prqper identification, by the alleged inconsistency in his acquittal of one count of assault and his conviction of robbery in the first degree,' and by the failure to give him any Miranda warnings. The. court considered relator’s contentions on these questions and [563]*563determined that none of his constitutional rights were violated. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 562, 306 N.Y.S.2d 399, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-english-v-follette-nyappdiv-1969.