People ex rel. Person v. Beilein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Person v. Beilein

306 A.D.2d 864, 761 N.Y.S.2d 896, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6871

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

DecidedJune 13, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 864 (People ex rel. Person v. Beilein) 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. Person v. Beilein, 306 A.D.2d 864, 761 N.Y.S.2d 896, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6871 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of Niagara County Court (Sperrazza, J.), entered May 11, 2001, which denied the petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

[865]*865Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that he allegedly was prejudiced by the absence of counsel at arraignment on a felony complaint. Petitioner was subsequently indicted, tried, and found guilty on all counts submitted to the jury. County Court properly denied the petition. Even assuming, arguendo, that petitioner was not afforded counsel at arraignment, we conclude that he nevertheless would not be entitled to immediate release, and thus habeas corpus relief is not available (see People ex rel. Beam v Hodges, 286 AD2d 936 [2001]). In any event, we note that the record on appeal is insufficient to enable this Court to determine whether petitioner was not in fact afforded counsel at arraignment. Petitioner therefore has failed to present “a sufficient record to allow appellate review of this issue” (People v Barney, 99 NY2d 367, 374 [2003], citing People v Kinchen, 60 NY2d 772, 773-774 [1983]). Present — Pine, J.P., Hurlbutt, Gorski, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

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

—Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of Niagara County Court (Sperrazza, J.), entered May 11, 2001, which denied the petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

[865]*865Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that he allegedly was prejudiced by the absence of counsel at arraignment on a felony complaint. Petitioner was subsequently indicted, tried, and found guilty on all counts submitted to the jury. County Court properly denied the petition. Even assuming, arguendo, that petitioner was not afforded counsel at arraignment, we conclude that he nevertheless would not be entitled to immediate release, and thus habeas corpus relief is not available (see People ex rel. Beam v Hodges, 286 AD2d 936 [2001]). In any event, we note that the record on appeal is insufficient to enable this Court to determine whether petitioner was not in fact afforded counsel at arraignment. Petitioner therefore has failed to present “a sufficient record to allow appellate review of this issue” (People v Barney, 99 NY2d 367, 374 [2003], citing People v Kinchen, 60 NY2d 772, 773-774 [1983]). Present — Pine, J.P., Hurlbutt, Gorski, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 864, 761 N.Y.S.2d 896, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-person-v-beilein-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack