People v. Brown

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Brown

382 N.E.2d 1149, 45 N.Y.2d 852, 410 N.Y.S.2d 287, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2281

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 19, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by425 cases

This text of 382 N.E.2d 1149 (People v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Brown, 382 N.E.2d 1149, 45 N.Y.2d 852, 410 N.Y.S.2d 287, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2281 (N.Y. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order of the Appellate Division reversed and new trial ordered. The record, unlike as in most "ineffective counsel” cases, demonstrates beyond cavil that defendant was lacking effective counsel throughout the prosecution against him. For whatever reason, despite undoubtedly sincere efforts on his part, assigned defense counsel failed to protect the interests of his client. The result of reversal is unfortunate since the guilt of defendant was, and even with effective counsel most likely would have been, established by overwhelming evidence. Nevertheless, defendant was entitled to a fair trial represented by effective counsel. (See, e.g., People v Droz, 39 NY2d 457, 462, and cases cited; People v Bennett, 29 NY2d 462, 465-467.) Generally, the ineffectiveness of counsel is not demonstrable on the main record, but in this case it is. Consequently, in the [854]*854typical case it would be better, and in some cases essential, that an appellate attack on the effectiveness of counsel be bottomed on an evidentiary exploration by collateral or post-conviction proceeding brought under CPL 440.10 (cf. People v Brown, 28 NY2d 282, 286-287).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order of the Appellate Division reversed and new trial ordered. The record, unlike as in most "ineffective counsel” cases, demonstrates beyond cavil that defendant was lacking effective counsel throughout the prosecution against him. For whatever reason, despite undoubtedly sincere efforts on his part, assigned defense counsel failed to protect the interests of his client. The result of reversal is unfortunate since the guilt of defendant was, and even with effective counsel most likely would have been, established by overwhelming evidence. Nevertheless, defendant was entitled to a fair trial represented by effective counsel. (See, e.g., People v Droz, 39 NY2d 457, 462, and cases cited; People v Bennett, 29 NY2d 462, 465-467.) Generally, the ineffectiveness of counsel is not demonstrable on the main record, but in this case it is. Consequently, in the [854]*854typical case it would be better, and in some cases essential, that an appellate attack on the effectiveness of counsel be bottomed on an evidentiary exploration by collateral or post-conviction proceeding brought under CPL 440.10 (cf. People v Brown, 28 NY2d 282, 286-287).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

382 N.E.2d 1149, 45 N.Y.2d 852, 410 N.Y.S.2d 287, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brown-ny-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack