People ex rel. Richardson v. Follette

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Richardson v. Follette

31 A.D.2d 815, 298 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4695

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 815 (People ex rel. Richardson v. Follette) 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. Richardson v. Follette, 31 A.D.2d 815, 298 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4695 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding, relator appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated March 25, 1968, which dismissed the writ. Judgment affirmed] without costs. The basis of relator’s claim was his assertion that at the, trial which resulted in his conviction and incarceration the People violated Ms fundamental constitutional rights by the introduction of testimony concerning Ms prior convictions. On this habeas corpus proceeding the Special Term which did not have the minutes of the criminal case trial before it, held that, in view of the fact that full appellate review of the conviction had been had (see People v. Richardson, 23 A D 2d 536, affd. 16 N Y 2d 897, cert. den. 384 U. S. 1020), it should not disturb -the conviction. Our examination of the trial minutes failed to reveal any basis for relator’s claim. Accordingly, the dismissal of the writ was proper (People ex rel. Keitt v. McMann, 18 N Y 2d 257). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Benjamin, Munder and Martuseello, JJ., concur.

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

In a habeas corpus proceeding, relator appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated March 25, 1968, which dismissed the writ. Judgment affirmed] without costs. The basis of relator’s claim was his assertion that at the, trial which resulted in his conviction and incarceration the People violated Ms fundamental constitutional rights by the introduction of testimony concerning Ms prior convictions. On this habeas corpus proceeding the Special Term which did not have the minutes of the criminal case trial before it, held that, in view of the fact that full appellate review of the conviction had been had (see People v. Richardson, 23 A D 2d 536, affd. 16 N Y 2d 897, cert. den. 384 U. S. 1020), it should not disturb -the conviction. Our examination of the trial minutes failed to reveal any basis for relator’s claim. Accordingly, the dismissal of the writ was proper (People ex rel. Keitt v. McMann, 18 N Y 2d 257). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Benjamin, Munder and Martuseello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 815, 298 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-richardson-v-follette-nyappdiv-1969.