People ex rel. House v. Jones

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. House v. Jones

102 A.D.2d 908, 477 N.Y.S.2d 482, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19149

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

DecidedJune 7, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 102 A.D.2d 908 (People ex rel. House v. Jones) 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. House v. Jones, 102 A.D.2d 908, 477 N.Y.S.2d 482, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19149 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Graves, J.), entered October 12, 1983 in Washington County, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing. 11 Petitioner is incarcerated at Attica Correctional Facility

* serving a sentence of 6 to 12 years for the crime of rape in the first degree. Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus on the grounds that he had not been present at the Wade and Huntley hearings preceding his criminal trial and had not waived his right to be present. In its decision, Special Term denied the application, noting that petitioner had failed to submit any factual basis to support his contentions and that, since his direct appeal from the judgment of conviction was still pending, the question was properly reviewable on the appeal. We concur with Special Term’s decision. I Habeas corpus is not an appropriate remedy when contentions of trial error can be reviewed directly by appeal or pursuant to CPL article 440 in the court of conviction (People ex rel. Davis v Coombe, 97 AD2d 667). We find no reason to depart from traditional procedure in the instant case. H Judgment affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Mikoll, JJ., concur.

When the petition was initially filed, petitioner was an inmate at Great Meadow Correctional Facility.

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

— Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Graves, J.), entered October 12, 1983 in Washington County, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing. 11 Petitioner is incarcerated at Attica Correctional Facility

* serving a sentence of 6 to 12 years for the crime of rape in the first degree. Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus on the grounds that he had not been present at the Wade and Huntley hearings preceding his criminal trial and had not waived his right to be present. In its decision, Special Term denied the application, noting that petitioner had failed to submit any factual basis to support his contentions and that, since his direct appeal from the judgment of conviction was still pending, the question was properly reviewable on the appeal. We concur with Special Term’s decision. I Habeas corpus is not an appropriate remedy when contentions of trial error can be reviewed directly by appeal or pursuant to CPL article 440 in the court of conviction (People ex rel. Davis v Coombe, 97 AD2d 667). We find no reason to depart from traditional procedure in the instant case. H Judgment affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Mikoll, JJ., concur.

When the petition was initially filed, petitioner was an inmate at Great Meadow Correctional Facility.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 A.D.2d 908, 477 N.Y.S.2d 482, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-house-v-jones-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack