People v. Jenkins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jenkins

32 A.D.2d 632, 300 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3912

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

DecidedMay 22, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 A.D.2d 632 (People v. Jenkins) 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. Jenkins, 32 A.D.2d 632, 300 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3912 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered November 19, 1968, denying after hearing petition for writ of error coram nobis, reversed on the law and facts and in the interest of justice, the petition is granted, the judgment of conviction dated April 26, 1964 is vacated (see 26 A D 2d 619) and a new trial ordered. In our opinion, representation of both defendants by the same attorney created a conflict of interest which was prejudicial by reason of the fact that the informer and the petitioner-appellant were represented by appellant’s lawyer without appellant’s knowledge that his codefendant was an informer. (See People v. Byrne, 17 N Y 2d 209.) Concur—■ Capozzoli, J. P., Tilzer, Nunez, McNally and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order entered November 19, 1968, denying after hearing petition for writ of error coram nobis, reversed on the law and facts and in the interest of justice, the petition is granted, the judgment of conviction dated April 26, 1964 is vacated (see 26 A D 2d 619) and a new trial ordered. In our opinion, representation of both defendants by the same attorney created a conflict of interest which was prejudicial by reason of the fact that the informer and the petitioner-appellant were represented by appellant’s lawyer without appellant’s knowledge that his codefendant was an informer. (See People v. Byrne, 17 N Y 2d 209.) Concur—■ Capozzoli, J. P., Tilzer, Nunez, McNally and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 632, 300 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jenkins-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack