People v. Huggins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Huggins

130 A.D.3d 1069, 13 N.Y.S.3d 847

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

DecidedJuly 29, 2015

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 130 A.D.3d 1069 (People v. Huggins) 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. Huggins, 130 A.D.3d 1069, 13 N.Y.S.3d 847 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brennan, J.), entered August 10, 2012, which denied, without a hearing, his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate a judgment of the same court (R. Rivera, J.), rendered December 13, 1999, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to vacate his judgment of conviction, which was made on the ground that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, since, on a previous motion that the defendant made pursuant to CPL 440.10, he “was in a position adequately to raise the ground or issue underlying the present motion but did not do so” (CPL 440.10 [3] [c]). In addition, the ground advanced as the reason to vacate the conviction has been “previously determined on the merits upon a prior motion or proceeding in a [federal] court” (CPL 440.10 [3] [b]; see Huggins v Girdick, 2007 WL 433397, 2007 US Dist LEXIS 8725 [ED NY, Feb. 7, 2007, No. 03-CV-3248 (NG/WP)]). The defendant failed to establish “good cause” that would merit granting the motion (CPL 440.10 [3]; cf. People v Hamilton, 115 AD3d 12, 28 [2014]). Balkin, J.P., Austin, Miller and Maltese, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brennan, J.), entered August 10, 2012, which denied, without a hearing, his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate a judgment of the same court (R. Rivera, J.), rendered December 13, 1999, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to vacate his judgment of conviction, which was made on the ground that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, since, on a previous motion that the defendant made pursuant to CPL 440.10, he “was in a position adequately to raise the ground or issue underlying the present motion but did not do so” (CPL 440.10 [3] [c]). In addition, the ground advanced as the reason to vacate the conviction has been “previously determined on the merits upon a prior motion or proceeding in a [federal] court” (CPL 440.10 [3] [b]; see Huggins v Girdick, 2007 WL 433397, 2007 US Dist LEXIS 8725 [ED NY, Feb. 7, 2007, No. 03-CV-3248 (NG/WP)]). The defendant failed to establish “good cause” that would merit granting the motion (CPL 440.10 [3]; cf. People v Hamilton, 115 AD3d 12, 28 [2014]). Balkin, J.P., Austin, Miller and Maltese, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 A.D.3d 1069, 13 N.Y.S.3d 847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-huggins-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack