People ex rel. Miller v. Harris

74 A.D.2d 885, 426 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10678
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 17, 1980
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 74 A.D.2d 885 (People ex rel. Miller v. Harris) 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. Miller v. Harris, 74 A.D.2d 885, 426 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10678 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated May 29, 1979, which dismissed the proceeding. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Petitioner was convicted of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and the judgment was affirmed by this court on November 22, 1976 (People v Miller, 54 AD2d 1140). During the trial, the trial court dismissed the counts of grand larceny in the second and third degrees for legally insufficient evidence. In his present application for habeas corpus relief, petitioner argues that (1) his convictions on the first degree robbery charges were repugnant to the trial court’s dismissal of the grand larceny counts and (2) his convictions on the robbery charges, after the dismissal of the grand larceny counts, violated the constitutional provision against double jeopardy. Petitioner’s argument with respect to double jeopardy is frivolous and totally without merit since he was only tried one time on the underlying charges. With respect to the petitioner’s claim of repugnancy, that issue should have been raised on petitioner’s appeal to this court from the judgment of conviction. Since he did not do so, he is barred from raising this issue in a habeas corpus petition (see People ex rel. Davis v Arnette, 57 AD2d 562). In any event, we have reviewed petitioner’s argument with respect to repugnancy, on the merits and, on the facts of this case, find it to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Cohalan, Martuscello and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People ex rel. Wallace v. New York State Board of Parole
111 A.D.2d 940 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
74 A.D.2d 885, 426 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-miller-v-harris-nyappdiv-1980.