People ex rel. Grant v. Scully

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Grant v. Scully

133 A.D.2d 359, 519 N.Y.S.2d 261, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49866

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

DecidedSeptember 8, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 133 A.D.2d 359 (People ex rel. Grant v. Scully) 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. Grant v. Scully, 133 A.D.2d 359, 519 N.Y.S.2d 261, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Braatz, J.), dated March 10, 1983, which, after summary hearing, dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner is detained pursuant to a judgment of conviction affirmed by the Appellate Division, First Department (see, People v Grant, 78 AD2d 779, lv denied 52 NY2d 833). He claims here that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel on a prior appeal which resulted in reinstatement of the indictment (see, People v Grant, 63 AD2d 575). However, a writ of habeas corpus is an improper vehicle for testing a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel (cf., People v Bachert, 69 NY2d 593; see, People ex rel. Douglas v Vincent, 67 AD2d 587, affd 50 NY2d 901). Dismissal of the present proceeding was therefore required (see, People v Bachert, supra; People ex rel. Douglas v Vincent, supra). Eiber, J. P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

—In a habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Braatz, J.), dated March 10, 1983, which, after summary hearing, dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner is detained pursuant to a judgment of conviction affirmed by the Appellate Division, First Department (see, People v Grant, 78 AD2d 779, lv denied 52 NY2d 833). He claims here that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel on a prior appeal which resulted in reinstatement of the indictment (see, People v Grant, 63 AD2d 575). However, a writ of habeas corpus is an improper vehicle for testing a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel (cf., People v Bachert, 69 NY2d 593; see, People ex rel. Douglas v Vincent, 67 AD2d 587, affd 50 NY2d 901). Dismissal of the present proceeding was therefore required (see, People v Bachert, supra; People ex rel. Douglas v Vincent, supra). Eiber, J. P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.2d 359, 519 N.Y.S.2d 261, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-grant-v-scully-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack