People v. Lebron

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lebron

44 A.D.3d 310, 841 N.Y.S.2d 866

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

DecidedOctober 2, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 44 A.D.3d 310 (People v. Lebron) 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. Lebron, 44 A.D.3d 310, 841 N.Y.S.2d 866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), entered on or about September 19, 2006, which denied defendant’s motion for DNA testing pursuant to CPL 440.30 (1-a), unanimously affirmed.

CPL 440.30 (1-a), which provides a procedure for convicted defendants to seek DNA testing, is inapplicable to persons who pleaded guilty (see People v Byrdsong, 33 AD3d 175 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 900 [2006]). Since defendant pleaded guilty, he may not avail himself of the provisions of the statute. Contrary to defendant’s argument, this Court, in its previous decision noting the appropriate procedure for defendant to seek DNA testing (Matter of Lebron v Smith, 17 AD3d 195 [2005], lv dismissed 5 NY3d 737 [2005]), did not rule that he is entitled to such testing. We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Tom, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), entered on or about September 19, 2006, which denied defendant’s motion for DNA testing pursuant to CPL 440.30 (1-a), unanimously affirmed.

CPL 440.30 (1-a), which provides a procedure for convicted defendants to seek DNA testing, is inapplicable to persons who pleaded guilty (see People v Byrdsong, 33 AD3d 175 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 900 [2006]). Since defendant pleaded guilty, he may not avail himself of the provisions of the statute. Contrary to defendant’s argument, this Court, in its previous decision noting the appropriate procedure for defendant to seek DNA testing (Matter of Lebron v Smith, 17 AD3d 195 [2005], lv dismissed 5 NY3d 737 [2005]), did not rule that he is entitled to such testing. We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Tom, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.3d 310, 841 N.Y.S.2d 866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lebron-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack