People v. Hendricks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hendricks

4 A.D.3d 798, 771 N.Y.S.2d 441

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

DecidedFebruary 11, 2004

DocketAppeal No. 2

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.3d 798 (People v. Hendricks) 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. Hendricks, 4 A.D.3d 798, 771 N.Y.S.2d 441 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of the Oneida County Court (Michael L. Dwyer, J.), entered May 19, 2003. The order denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order denying his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 seeking to vacate the judgment of conviction. Defendant contends that the People withheld a statement in violation of their obligations under Brady v Maryland (373 US 83 [1963]). We agree. However, because “there is no ‘reasonable probability’ that the verdict would have been different had the material been disclosed to the defense and presented to the trier of fact,” reversal is not required (.People v Valentin, 1 AD3d 982, 983 [2003]). Present—Green, J.P, Wisner, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Appeal from an order of the Oneida County Court (Michael L. Dwyer, J.), entered May 19, 2003. The order denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order denying his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 seeking to vacate the judgment of conviction. Defendant contends that the People withheld a statement in violation of their obligations under Brady v Maryland (373 US 83 [1963]). We agree. However, because “there is no ‘reasonable probability’ that the verdict would have been different had the material been disclosed to the defense and presented to the trier of fact,” reversal is not required (.People v Valentin, 1 AD3d 982, 983 [2003]). Present—Green, J.P, Wisner, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.3d 798, 771 N.Y.S.2d 441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hendricks-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack