People v. Hoyte

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hoyte

273 A.D.2d 48, 709 N.Y.S.2d 537, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6358

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

DecidedJune 8, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 273 A.D.2d 48 (People v. Hoyte) 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. Hoyte, 273 A.D.2d 48, 709 N.Y.S.2d 537, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6358 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Frank Torres, J.), entered on or about November 8, 1999, which granted defendant’s motion to vacate a judgment, same court and Justice, rendered October 30, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 15 years to life, and ordered a new trial, unanimously reversed, on the law, the conviction reinstated and defendant’s motion to vacate his judgment of conviction remitted for a hearing.

Contrary to the People’s assertion, the court properly entertained defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment of conviction made on the ground of ineffective assistance, since it was based upon a combination of matters dehors the record and closely related matters discernible on the record (see, CPL 440.10 [2] [b]). However, and notwithstanding that there are serious issues relating to the effectiveness of defendant’s counsel, the court erred in summarily granting the motion (see, CPL 440.30 [3], [5]). This issue is properly before us because the People never conceded the nonrecord factual allegations concerning “the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations” (People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709) essential to support the motion (see, CPL 440.30 [3] [c]). Under the circumstances of the case, counsel’s reasons for his strategic choices were clearly material (compare, People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d [49]*49796, 799) and were not established, particularly where no affidavit from counsel was submitted nor was an explanation for the failure to do so provided. Likewise, none of the essential nonrecord allegations were “conclusively substantiated by unquestionable documentary proof’ (CPL 440.30 [3] [c]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P,, Ellerin, Lerner, Andrias and Friedman, JJ. [See, 183 Misc 2d 1.]

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Frank Torres, J.), entered on or about November 8, 1999, which granted defendant’s motion to vacate a judgment, same court and Justice, rendered October 30, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 15 years to life, and ordered a new trial, unanimously reversed, on the law, the conviction reinstated and defendant’s motion to vacate his judgment of conviction remitted for a hearing.

Contrary to the People’s assertion, the court properly entertained defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment of conviction made on the ground of ineffective assistance, since it was based upon a combination of matters dehors the record and closely related matters discernible on the record (see, CPL 440.10 [2] [b]). However, and notwithstanding that there are serious issues relating to the effectiveness of defendant’s counsel, the court erred in summarily granting the motion (see, CPL 440.30 [3], [5]). This issue is properly before us because the People never conceded the nonrecord factual allegations concerning “the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations” (People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709) essential to support the motion (see, CPL 440.30 [3] [c]). Under the circumstances of the case, counsel’s reasons for his strategic choices were clearly material (compare, People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d [49]*49796, 799) and were not established, particularly where no affidavit from counsel was submitted nor was an explanation for the failure to do so provided. Likewise, none of the essential nonrecord allegations were “conclusively substantiated by unquestionable documentary proof’ (CPL 440.30 [3] [c]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P,, Ellerin, Lerner, Andrias and Friedman, JJ. [See, 183 Misc 2d 1.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 48, 709 N.Y.S.2d 537, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hoyte-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack