People v. Baxter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Baxter

207 A.D.2d 1034, 618 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10391

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 207 A.D.2d 1034 (People v. Baxter) 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. Baxter, 207 A.D.2d 1034, 618 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10391 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Motion for writ of error coram nobis granted and order entered December 30, 1992 vacated. Memorandum: Defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel because counsel failed to raise an issue on direct appeal that would have resulted in reversal, i.e., whether defendant was present during the Sandoval conference. Upon our review of the trial court proceedings, we conclude that the issue may have merit. Therefore, the order of December 30, 1992 is vacated and this Court will consider the appeal de novo (see, People v Vasquez, 70 NY2d 1; People v LeFrois, 151 AD2d 1046). Defendant’s assigned counsel is directed to file and serve defendant’s brief with this Court on or before November 18, 1994; respondent is directed to file its brief on or before December 20, 1994, and the appeal is to be added to the calendar for the term of Court commencing January 9, 1995. Present—Green, J. P., Callahan, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Motion for writ of error coram nobis granted and order entered December 30, 1992 vacated. Memorandum: Defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel because counsel failed to raise an issue on direct appeal that would have resulted in reversal, i.e., whether defendant was present during the Sandoval conference. Upon our review of the trial court proceedings, we conclude that the issue may have merit. Therefore, the order of December 30, 1992 is vacated and this Court will consider the appeal de novo (see, People v Vasquez, 70 NY2d 1; People v LeFrois, 151 AD2d 1046). Defendant’s assigned counsel is directed to file and serve defendant’s brief with this Court on or before November 18, 1994; respondent is directed to file its brief on or before December 20, 1994, and the appeal is to be added to the calendar for the term of Court commencing January 9, 1995. Present—Green, J. P., Callahan, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 1034, 618 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-baxter-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack