People v. Hacker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hacker

162 A.D.2d 815, 559 N.Y.S.2d 184, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7432

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

DecidedJune 19, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 162 A.D.2d 815 (People v. Hacker) 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. Hacker, 162 A.D.2d 815, 559 N.Y.S.2d 184, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7432 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Application, pursuant to People v Bachert (69 NY2d 593), for writ of error coram nobis.

Defendant contends on this application that he was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel upon the appeal from his judgment of conviction (115 AD2d 787). More specifically, defendant asserts that he was denied his constitutional right to proceed pro se in County Court (see, Faretta v California, 422 US 806; People v Davis, 49 NY2d 114; People v McIntyre, 36 NY2d 10) and that appellate counsel failed to raise this issue upon the appeal.

We agree that the issue concerning defendant’s right to proceed pro se may have merit and should have been raised by appellate counsel (see, People v Decker, 134 AD2d 726). Accordingly, the instant application for coram nobis relief should be granted, the order of this court entered December 16, 1985 affirming the judgment of conviction vacated, and defendant’s appeal reinstated. Upon the reinstated appeal, defendant may raise the issue of whether he was denied his constitutional right to represent himself at trial.

Application granted, order entered December 16, 1985 vacated, and appeal from judgment of the County Court of Broome County rendered March 3, 1982 reinstated. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Mikoll, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

Application, pursuant to People v Bachert (69 NY2d 593), for writ of error coram nobis.

Defendant contends on this application that he was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel upon the appeal from his judgment of conviction (115 AD2d 787). More specifically, defendant asserts that he was denied his constitutional right to proceed pro se in County Court (see, Faretta v California, 422 US 806; People v Davis, 49 NY2d 114; People v McIntyre, 36 NY2d 10) and that appellate counsel failed to raise this issue upon the appeal.

We agree that the issue concerning defendant’s right to proceed pro se may have merit and should have been raised by appellate counsel (see, People v Decker, 134 AD2d 726). Accordingly, the instant application for coram nobis relief should be granted, the order of this court entered December 16, 1985 affirming the judgment of conviction vacated, and defendant’s appeal reinstated. Upon the reinstated appeal, defendant may raise the issue of whether he was denied his constitutional right to represent himself at trial.

Application granted, order entered December 16, 1985 vacated, and appeal from judgment of the County Court of Broome County rendered March 3, 1982 reinstated. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Mikoll, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D.2d 815, 559 N.Y.S.2d 184, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hacker-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack