People v. Badia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Badia

106 A.D.3d 514, 964 N.Y.S.2d 906

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

DecidedMay 16, 2013

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 106 A.D.3d 514 (People v. Badia) 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 v. Badia, 106 A.D.3d 514, 964 N.Y.S.2d 906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Farber, J.), rendered November 13, 2008, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth and seventh degrees, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of one year, unanimously affirmed. Order, same court and Justice, entered on or about May 15, 2011, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.

Initially, we note that the People do not dispute the applicability, to defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion, of Padilla v Kentucky (559 US 356 [2010]), which was decided while defendant’s direct appeal was pending.

The motion court erred in holding that it was “constrained,” by People v Diaz (7 NY3d 831 [2006]), to deny defendant’s Padilla-based motion to vacate his conviction because defendant had been deported and was no longer within the court’s jurisdiction. Defendant’s physical inability to appear in court was not a proper basis for failing to entertain the motion (see People v Ventura, 17 NY3d 675 [2011]). We take no position on the merits of defendant’s motion.

With regard to the direct appeal, defendant has not shown any basis for reversal of the judgment of conviction. Concur— Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Sweeny, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Farber, J.), rendered November 13, 2008, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth and seventh degrees, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of one year, unanimously affirmed. Order, same court and Justice, entered on or about May 15, 2011, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.

Initially, we note that the People do not dispute the applicability, to defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion, of Padilla v Kentucky (559 US 356 [2010]), which was decided while defendant’s direct appeal was pending.

The motion court erred in holding that it was “constrained,” by People v Diaz (7 NY3d 831 [2006]), to deny defendant’s Padilla-based motion to vacate his conviction because defendant had been deported and was no longer within the court’s jurisdiction. Defendant’s physical inability to appear in court was not a proper basis for failing to entertain the motion (see People v Ventura, 17 NY3d 675 [2011]). We take no position on the merits of defendant’s motion.

With regard to the direct appeal, defendant has not shown any basis for reversal of the judgment of conviction. Concur— Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Sweeny, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.D.3d 514, 964 N.Y.S.2d 906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-badia-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack