People v. Coleman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Coleman

37 A.D.3d 491, 827 N.Y.S.2d 878

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 37 A.D.3d 491 (People v. Coleman) 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. Coleman, 37 A.D.3d 491, 827 N.Y.S.2d 878 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant, by permission, from an order of the County Court, Nassau County (Peck, J), entered April 5, 2005, which denied, without a hearing, his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate a judgment of the same court (DeRiggi, J), rendered May 5, 2003, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, robbery in the third degree, and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

In deciding a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10, the trial court need not hold a hearing if the parties’ submissions are sufficient to render a determination (see CPL 440.30 [1], [4]; People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 799 [1985]; People v Demetsenare, 14 AD3d 792, 793 [2005]). The defendant must show that the nonrecord facts sought to be established are material and would entitle him or her to relief (see People v Satterfield, supra; People v Demetsenare, supra). Here, the defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel were largely based upon unsubstantiated, conclusory allegations, and thus, the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 was properly denied without a hearing (see People v Hall, 28 AD3d 678 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 867 [2006]; People v Bacchi, 186 AD2d 663 [1992]).

The defendant’s remaining contention was not raised in the underlying motion papers and therefore is not properly before us on appeal. Miller, J.E, Spolzino, Ritter and Dillon, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant, by permission, from an order of the County Court, Nassau County (Peck, J), entered April 5, 2005, which denied, without a hearing, his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate a judgment of the same court (DeRiggi, J), rendered May 5, 2003, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, robbery in the third degree, and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

In deciding a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10, the trial court need not hold a hearing if the parties’ submissions are sufficient to render a determination (see CPL 440.30 [1], [4]; People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 799 [1985]; People v Demetsenare, 14 AD3d 792, 793 [2005]). The defendant must show that the nonrecord facts sought to be established are material and would entitle him or her to relief (see People v Satterfield, supra; People v Demetsenare, supra). Here, the defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel were largely based upon unsubstantiated, conclusory allegations, and thus, the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 was properly denied without a hearing (see People v Hall, 28 AD3d 678 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 867 [2006]; People v Bacchi, 186 AD2d 663 [1992]).

The defendant’s remaining contention was not raised in the underlying motion papers and therefore is not properly before us on appeal. Miller, J.E, Spolzino, Ritter and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 491, 827 N.Y.S.2d 878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-coleman-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack