People v. Barrows

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Barrows

65 A.D.2d 625, 409 N.Y.S.2d 526, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13328

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

DecidedOctober 30, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 65 A.D.2d 625 (People v. Barrows) 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. Barrows, 65 A.D.2d 625, 409 N.Y.S.2d 526, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13328 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 9, 1977, convicting him of two counts of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Case remitted to the Criminal Term to hear and report on defendant’s claim that his predicate felony conviction had been obtained in violation of his constitutional rights (see CPL 400.21, subd 7, par [b]), and appeal held in abeyance in the interim. The District Attorney candidly concedes that a hearing was required after defendant asserted at sentencing that his prior conviction was obtained in derogation of his constitutional rights. Specifically, defendant claimed that his earlier conviction in Alabama was the result of his having been represented by incompetent counsel, in that his attorney failed to request treatment as a youthful offender for him. A hearing on this question will allow the court to fully examine this claim (see People v Owens; 58 AD2d 587). We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Cohalan, J. P., Margett, Hawkins and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 9, 1977, convicting him of two counts of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Case remitted to the Criminal Term to hear and report on defendant’s claim that his predicate felony conviction had been obtained in violation of his constitutional rights (see CPL 400.21, subd 7, par [b]), and appeal held in abeyance in the interim. The District Attorney candidly concedes that a hearing was required after defendant asserted at sentencing that his prior conviction was obtained in derogation of his constitutional rights. Specifically, defendant claimed that his earlier conviction in Alabama was the result of his having been represented by incompetent counsel, in that his attorney failed to request treatment as a youthful offender for him. A hearing on this question will allow the court to fully examine this claim (see People v Owens; 58 AD2d 587). We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Cohalan, J. P., Margett, Hawkins and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A.D.2d 625, 409 N.Y.S.2d 526, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-barrows-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack