People v. Demott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Demott

185 A.D.2d 718, 587 N.Y.S.2d 558, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15144

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

DecidedJuly 14, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 185 A.D.2d 718 (People v. Demott) 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. Demott, 185 A.D.2d 718, 587 N.Y.S.2d 558, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15144 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Motion for writ of error coram nobis granted and remittitur order entered December 26, 1991 vacated. Memorandum: Defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel because counsel failed to raise an issue on defendant’s direct appeal that would have resulted in reversal, specifically, a preserved issue [719]*719whether the jury verdicts were repugnant. Upon our review of the record of the trial court proceedings, we conclude that the repugnancy issue may have merit. Therefore, the order of December 26, 1991 (178 AD2d 935) 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 present counsel is directed to file his brief with this court on or before July 31, 1992, respondent is directed to file its brief on or before August 31, 1992, and the appeal is to be added to the calendar for the term of court commencing August 31, 1992. Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ. (Entered June 30, 1992.)

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 remittitur order entered December 26, 1991 vacated. Memorandum: Defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel because counsel failed to raise an issue on defendant’s direct appeal that would have resulted in reversal, specifically, a preserved issue [719]*719whether the jury verdicts were repugnant. Upon our review of the record of the trial court proceedings, we conclude that the repugnancy issue may have merit. Therefore, the order of December 26, 1991 (178 AD2d 935) 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 present counsel is directed to file his brief with this court on or before July 31, 1992, respondent is directed to file its brief on or before August 31, 1992, and the appeal is to be added to the calendar for the term of court commencing August 31, 1992. Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ. (Entered June 30, 1992.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 A.D.2d 718, 587 N.Y.S.2d 558, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-demott-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack