People v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kelly

110 A.D.2d 856, 488 N.Y.S.2d 254, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48766

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

DecidedApril 22, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 110 A.D.2d 856 (People v. Kelly) 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. Kelly, 110 A.D.2d 856, 488 N.Y.S.2d 254, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48766 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

On review of the record and the extensive procedural history of this case, we agree with Criminal Term that under CPL 440.10 (2) (a), (c), defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment must be denied.

By order dated April 9, 1979, we previously affirmed defendant’s judgment of conviction, without opinion (People v Kelly, 69 AD2d 1022). Further, by order dated June 12, 1980, we denied defendant’s pro se motion for reargument of the appeal. At the time, we rejected defendant’s claims, raised again herein, concerning (1) the applicability of Payton v New York (445 US 573) to the instant case, and (2) defendant’s adjudication as a persistent felony offender and sentencing under Penal Law § 70.10. Therefore, as to these issues, Criminal Term properly denied defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment (CPL 440.10 [2]).

We also find no merit to defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel (see, Evitts v Lucey, 469 US _, 105 S Ct 830, 836; Jones v Barnes, 463 US 745; 103 S Ct 3308, 3312-3314; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606).

With respect to defendant’s remaining contentions, we find them to be without merit. Titone, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

On review of the record and the extensive procedural history of this case, we agree with Criminal Term that under CPL 440.10 (2) (a), (c), defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment must be denied.

By order dated April 9, 1979, we previously affirmed defendant’s judgment of conviction, without opinion (People v Kelly, 69 AD2d 1022). Further, by order dated June 12, 1980, we denied defendant’s pro se motion for reargument of the appeal. At the time, we rejected defendant’s claims, raised again herein, concerning (1) the applicability of Payton v New York (445 US 573) to the instant case, and (2) defendant’s adjudication as a persistent felony offender and sentencing under Penal Law § 70.10. Therefore, as to these issues, Criminal Term properly denied defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment (CPL 440.10 [2]).

We also find no merit to defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel (see, Evitts v Lucey, 469 US _, 105 S Ct 830, 836; Jones v Barnes, 463 US 745; 103 S Ct 3308, 3312-3314; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606).

With respect to defendant’s remaining contentions, we find them to be without merit. Titone, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.2d 856, 488 N.Y.S.2d 254, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kelly-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack