People v. Karlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Karlin

234 A.D.2d 1013, 652 N.Y.S.2d 573, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13887

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 234 A.D.2d 1013 (People v. Karlin) 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. Karlin, 234 A.D.2d 1013, 652 N.Y.S.2d 573, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13887 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Motion for writ of error coram nobis granted, [1014]*1014and the order entered November 16, 1994 (209 AD2d 987) is hereby vacated. Memorandum: Defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel because counsel failed to raise an issue on direct appeal that would have resulted in reversal, specifically, whether defendant was denied his right to a fair trial because of prosecutorial misconduct. Upon our review of the trial court proceedings, we conclude that the issue may have merit. Therefore, the order of November 16, 1994 is vacated and this Court will consider the appeal de novo (see, People v Vasquez, 70 NY2d 1, rearg denied 70 NY2d 748; People v LeFrois, 151 AD2d 1046). Defendant’s attorney is directed to file and serve defendant’s brief with this Court on or before March 14, 1997, respondent is directed to file its brief on or before April 14, 1997, and the appeal is to be added to the calendar for the term of Court commencing May 5, 1997. Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Motion for writ of error coram nobis granted, [1014]*1014and the order entered November 16, 1994 (209 AD2d 987) is hereby vacated. Memorandum: Defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel because counsel failed to raise an issue on direct appeal that would have resulted in reversal, specifically, whether defendant was denied his right to a fair trial because of prosecutorial misconduct. Upon our review of the trial court proceedings, we conclude that the issue may have merit. Therefore, the order of November 16, 1994 is vacated and this Court will consider the appeal de novo (see, People v Vasquez, 70 NY2d 1, rearg denied 70 NY2d 748; People v LeFrois, 151 AD2d 1046). Defendant’s attorney is directed to file and serve defendant’s brief with this Court on or before March 14, 1997, respondent is directed to file its brief on or before April 14, 1997, and the appeal is to be added to the calendar for the term of Court commencing May 5, 1997. Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 1013, 652 N.Y.S.2d 573, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-karlin-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack