People ex rel. Smith v. Irvin

284 A.D.2d 1013, 727 N.Y.S.2d 669, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5915

This text of 284 A.D.2d 1013 (People ex rel. Smith v. Irvin) 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. Smith v. Irvin, 284 A.D.2d 1013, 727 N.Y.S.2d 669, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is not an appropriate remedy where “the contentions raised in the petition ‘could have been raised on direct appeal or pursuant to CPL article 440’ ” (People ex rel. Pangburn v Hodges, 281 AD2d 973, 973-974; see, People ex rel. Kowalczyk v LeFevre, 70 AD2d 745, Iv denied 48 NY2d 602). Although petitioner provided an adequate reason for his failure to take a direct appeal, he provided no reason for his failure to raise his contentions by way of a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Kane, J. — Habeas Corpus.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

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

Related

People ex rel. Kowalczyk v. LeFevre
70 A.D.2d 745 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
People ex rel. Pangburn v. Hodges
281 A.D.2d 973 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
284 A.D.2d 1013, 727 N.Y.S.2d 669, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-smith-v-irvin-nyappdiv-2001.