People ex rel. Manning v. Scully

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Manning v. Scully

192 A.D.2d 688, 598 N.Y.S.2d 728, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3878

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

DecidedApril 19, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 192 A.D.2d 688 (People ex rel. Manning 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. Manning v. Scully, 192 A.D.2d 688, 598 N.Y.S.2d 728, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3878 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Amodeo, J.), rendered May 11, 1992, which dismissed the proceeding.

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

The defendant is now incarcerated pursuant to a judgment of conviction rendered after a jury trial (see, People v Manning, 178 AD2d 555). The gravamen of the petitioner’s claim in this habeas corpus proceeding is that the evidence before the Grand Jury was legally insufficient. However, the petitioner waived this claim by failing to raise it in a pretrial motion (see, CPL 255.20; People v Miller, 121 AD2d 477). In any event, where, as here, the petitioner is convicted upon legally sufficient trial evidence (see, People v Manning, 178 AD2d 555, supra), the sufficiency of the Grand Jury evidence is not reviewable (see, CPL 210.30 [6]; Matter of Miranda v Isseks, 41 AD2d 176). We therefore affirm the judgment dismissing the proceeding. Thompson, J. P., Miller, Lawrence and Pizzuto, 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 (Amodeo, J.), rendered May 11, 1992, which dismissed the proceeding.

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

The defendant is now incarcerated pursuant to a judgment of conviction rendered after a jury trial (see, People v Manning, 178 AD2d 555). The gravamen of the petitioner’s claim in this habeas corpus proceeding is that the evidence before the Grand Jury was legally insufficient. However, the petitioner waived this claim by failing to raise it in a pretrial motion (see, CPL 255.20; People v Miller, 121 AD2d 477). In any event, where, as here, the petitioner is convicted upon legally sufficient trial evidence (see, People v Manning, 178 AD2d 555, supra), the sufficiency of the Grand Jury evidence is not reviewable (see, CPL 210.30 [6]; Matter of Miranda v Isseks, 41 AD2d 176). We therefore affirm the judgment dismissing the proceeding. Thompson, J. P., Miller, Lawrence and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 688, 598 N.Y.S.2d 728, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-manning-v-scully-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack