People v. Cotton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cotton

161 A.D.2d 1210, 555 N.Y.S.2d 530, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9309

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

DecidedMay 11, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 161 A.D.2d 1210 (People v. Cotton) 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. Cotton, 161 A.D.2d 1210, 555 N.Y.S.2d 530, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9309 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion for writ of error coram nobis denied. Memorandum: Defendant seeks a writ of error coram nobis upon the ground that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel on his appeal from a murder conviction. Specifically, he contends that appellate counsel failed to raise issues concerning the justification defense, use of defendant’s statements at trial, and the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Defendant’s contentions on each of these issues are not supported by the record and are groundless.

Appellate counsel is not required to raise every available argument, regardless of merit (Evitts v Lucey, 469 US 387, [1211]*1211394). Defendant’s right to meaningful representation by appellate counsel is satisfied where the attorney undertakes a thorough review of the record and selects the most promising issues for review (see, Jones v Barnes, 463 US 745, 752). That standard was satisfied in this case. Present—Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Motion for writ of error coram nobis denied. Memorandum: Defendant seeks a writ of error coram nobis upon the ground that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel on his appeal from a murder conviction. Specifically, he contends that appellate counsel failed to raise issues concerning the justification defense, use of defendant’s statements at trial, and the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Defendant’s contentions on each of these issues are not supported by the record and are groundless.

Appellate counsel is not required to raise every available argument, regardless of merit (Evitts v Lucey, 469 US 387, [1211]*1211394). Defendant’s right to meaningful representation by appellate counsel is satisfied where the attorney undertakes a thorough review of the record and selects the most promising issues for review (see, Jones v Barnes, 463 US 745, 752). That standard was satisfied in this case. Present—Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 A.D.2d 1210, 555 N.Y.S.2d 530, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cotton-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack