People ex rel. Pitts v. Unger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Pitts v. Unger

60 A.D.3d 1358, 876 N.Y.S.2d 799

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

DecidedMarch 20, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 60 A.D.3d 1358 (People ex rel. Pitts v. Unger) 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. Pitts v. Unger, 60 A.D.3d 1358, 876 N.Y.S.2d 799 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Orleans [1359]*1359County (James E Punch, A.J.), entered December 28, 2007 in a habeas corpus proceeding. The judgment dismissed the petition.

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

Memorandum: We reject the contention of petitioner that Supreme Court erred in dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner’s contention in support of the petition with respect to double jeopardy could have been raised on direct appeal or by a postjudgment motion pursuant to CPL article 440 (see People ex rel. Pitts v McCoy, 11 AD3d 985 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 705 [2005]; People ex rel. Hammock v Meloni, 233 AD2d 929 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 807 [1997]). Contrary to petitioner’s contentions, the petition was properly dismissed in response to respondent’s motion (see CPLR 404 [a]; see also People ex rel. Goude v La Vallee, 42 AD2d 648 [1973]), and petitioner was afforded meaningful representation by the attorney assigned to represent him in connection with the habeas corpus petition (see generally People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]). Present — Martoche, J.P., Centra, Fahey and Pine, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Orleans [1359]*1359County (James E Punch, A.J.), entered December 28, 2007 in a habeas corpus proceeding. The judgment dismissed the petition.

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

Memorandum: We reject the contention of petitioner that Supreme Court erred in dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner’s contention in support of the petition with respect to double jeopardy could have been raised on direct appeal or by a postjudgment motion pursuant to CPL article 440 (see People ex rel. Pitts v McCoy, 11 AD3d 985 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 705 [2005]; People ex rel. Hammock v Meloni, 233 AD2d 929 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 807 [1997]). Contrary to petitioner’s contentions, the petition was properly dismissed in response to respondent’s motion (see CPLR 404 [a]; see also People ex rel. Goude v La Vallee, 42 AD2d 648 [1973]), and petitioner was afforded meaningful representation by the attorney assigned to represent him in connection with the habeas corpus petition (see generally People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]). Present — Martoche, J.P., Centra, Fahey and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.3d 1358, 876 N.Y.S.2d 799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-pitts-v-unger-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack