People v. Eldridge

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Eldridge

291 N.E.2d 719, 31 N.Y.2d 820, 339 N.Y.S.2d 673, 1972 N.Y. LEXIS 981

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 29, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 291 N.E.2d 719 (People v. Eldridge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Eldridge, 291 N.E.2d 719, 31 N.Y.2d 820, 339 N.Y.S.2d 673, 1972 N.Y. LEXIS 981 (N.Y. 1972).

Pincite

Opinions

Memorandum. The Court of Appeals customarily declines to review the type of discretion exercised by the intermediate appellate court in this case (People v. Evans, 26 N Y 2d 681; People v. Sanchez, 298 N. Y. 923; Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals, pp. 720-721, 745). The dismissal is not attributable to the defendant’s indigence, requiring us to relax the rule (People v. Pitts, 6 N Y 2d 288). Rather, the delay was due initially to the failure of the Public Defender to do anything to perfect the appeal and thereafter to his omission to invoke the simple remedy available to him to require filing of a return, and his insistence, instead, upon pursuing his mistaken contention that the appeal was governed by the CPL provisions authorizing a transcript rather than by the Code of Criminal Procedure. The fact that the attorney assigned to the case by the Public Defender advanced this mistaken legal theory [822]*822does not reflect the egregious lack of competent representation for which relief will be granted and no such ground is urged.

The order appealed from should be affirmed.

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

Memorandum. The Court of Appeals customarily declines to review the type of discretion exercised by the intermediate appellate court in this case (People v. Evans, 26 N Y 2d 681; People v. Sanchez, 298 N. Y. 923; Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals, pp. 720-721, 745). The dismissal is not attributable to the defendant’s indigence, requiring us to relax the rule (People v. Pitts, 6 N Y 2d 288). Rather, the delay was due initially to the failure of the Public Defender to do anything to perfect the appeal and thereafter to his omission to invoke the simple remedy available to him to require filing of a return, and his insistence, instead, upon pursuing his mistaken contention that the appeal was governed by the CPL provisions authorizing a transcript rather than by the Code of Criminal Procedure. The fact that the attorney assigned to the case by the Public Defender advanced this mistaken legal theory [822]*822does not reflect the egregious lack of competent representation for which relief will be granted and no such ground is urged.

The order appealed from should be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 N.E.2d 719, 31 N.Y.2d 820, 339 N.Y.S.2d 673, 1972 N.Y. LEXIS 981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-eldridge-ny-1972.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack