People v. Dennis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dennis

2017 NY Slip Op 1883, 148 A.D.3d 927, 49 N.Y.S.3d 520

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

DecidedMarch 15, 2017

Docket2014-11145

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 1883 (People v. Dennis) 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. Dennis, 2017 NY Slip Op 1883, 148 A.D.3d 927, 49 N.Y.S.3d 520 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Spergel, J.), rendered May 9, 2014. By decision and order of this Court dated June 1, 2016, the matter was remitted to the *928 Supreme Court, Nassau County, to afford, the defendant an opportunity to move to vacate his plea of guilty in accordance therewith, and for a report on any such motion. The appeal was held in abeyance pending receipt of a report from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has now filed an order dated September 27, 2016.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the order dated September 27, 2016, is vacated; and it is further,

Ordered that the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the issuance of a report, forthwith, without any accompanying order, advising only whether the defendant moved to vacate his plea of guilty, and if so, whether he made the requisite showing or failed to make the requisite showing required pursuant to People v Peque (22 NY3d 168 [2013]); and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal shall continue to be held in abeyance pending receipt of the Supreme Court’s report.

The decision and order of this Court dated June 1, 2016, remitted the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the limited purpose of affording the defendant an opportunity to move to vacate his plea of guilty in accordance therewith, and for a report on any such motion. Upon remittitur, the court erroneously issued an order, in effect, granting that motion and vacating the plea of guilty. This exceeded the scope of this Court’s directive contained in the decision and order dated June 1, 2016. Accordingly, we must again remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the issuance of a report, without any accompanying order, specifically limited to and advising only whether the defendant moved to vacate his plea of guilty, and if so, whether he made the requisite showing or failed to make the requisite showing required pursuant to People v Peque (22 NY3d 168 [2013]). There are no other matters to be considered by the court upon remittitur.

Rivera, J.R, Austin, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Spergel, J.), rendered May 9, 2014. By decision and order of this Court dated June 1, 2016, the matter was remitted to the *928 Supreme Court, Nassau County, to afford, the defendant an opportunity to move to vacate his plea of guilty in accordance therewith, and for a report on any such motion. The appeal was held in abeyance pending receipt of a report from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has now filed an order dated September 27, 2016.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the order dated September 27, 2016, is vacated; and it is further,

Ordered that the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the issuance of a report, forthwith, without any accompanying order, advising only whether the defendant moved to vacate his plea of guilty, and if so, whether he made the requisite showing or failed to make the requisite showing required pursuant to People v Peque (22 NY3d 168 [2013]); and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal shall continue to be held in abeyance pending receipt of the Supreme Court’s report.

The decision and order of this Court dated June 1, 2016, remitted the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the limited purpose of affording the defendant an opportunity to move to vacate his plea of guilty in accordance therewith, and for a report on any such motion. Upon remittitur, the court erroneously issued an order, in effect, granting that motion and vacating the plea of guilty. This exceeded the scope of this Court’s directive contained in the decision and order dated June 1, 2016. Accordingly, we must again remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the issuance of a report, without any accompanying order, specifically limited to and advising only whether the defendant moved to vacate his plea of guilty, and if so, whether he made the requisite showing or failed to make the requisite showing required pursuant to People v Peque (22 NY3d 168 [2013]). There are no other matters to be considered by the court upon remittitur.

Rivera, J.R, Austin, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 1883, 148 A.D.3d 927, 49 N.Y.S.3d 520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dennis-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack