People v. Canals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Canals

11 A.D.3d 215, 782 N.Y.S.2d 255, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11511

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

DecidedOctober 5, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.3d 215 (People v. Canals) 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. Canals, 11 A.D.3d 215, 782 N.Y.S.2d 255, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11511 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.), rendered January 5, 2001, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years, held in abeyance, motion by assigned counsel to be relieved denied without prejudice to renewal, and counsel directed to communicate with defendant [216]*216forthwith concerning any issues that may be raised concerning defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony and the possible consequences of pursuing an appeal raising such issues, and advising defendant that he has 60 days from the date of this order to file a pro se supplemental brief.

Counsel’s letter to defendant, with a copy of the brief filed with this Court, does not meet the requirements of People v Saunders (52 AD2d 833 [1976]). Counsel has not sufficiently established that defendant has been made aware of any potential issues relating to the Wade hearing, that he has made an informed decision not to raise any such issues, and that he has a right to raise such issues in a pro se brief if he so chooses. Concur—Tom, J.P., Williams, Friedman, Marlow and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.), rendered January 5, 2001, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years, held in abeyance, motion by assigned counsel to be relieved denied without prejudice to renewal, and counsel directed to communicate with defendant [216]*216forthwith concerning any issues that may be raised concerning defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony and the possible consequences of pursuing an appeal raising such issues, and advising defendant that he has 60 days from the date of this order to file a pro se supplemental brief.

Counsel’s letter to defendant, with a copy of the brief filed with this Court, does not meet the requirements of People v Saunders (52 AD2d 833 [1976]). Counsel has not sufficiently established that defendant has been made aware of any potential issues relating to the Wade hearing, that he has made an informed decision not to raise any such issues, and that he has a right to raise such issues in a pro se brief if he so chooses. Concur—Tom, J.P., Williams, Friedman, Marlow and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.3d 215, 782 N.Y.S.2d 255, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-canals-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack