People v. Mailey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mailey

252 A.D.2d 995, 675 N.Y.S.2d 925, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8556

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

DecidedJuly 8, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 252 A.D.2d 995 (People v. Mailey) 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. Mailey, 252 A.D.2d 995, 675 N.Y.S.2d 925, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8556 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Motion for reargument granted and, upon reargument, motion for writ of error coram nobis granted and order entered April 17, 1998 and order entered and decision filed November 19,1997 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 entitled to a second examination pursuant to CPL 730.20 (1). Upon our review of the trial court proceedings, we conclude that the issue may have merit. Therefore, the order entered April 17, 1998 and the order entered and decision filed November 19, 1997 are 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 is directed to file and serve his brief on or before October 5, 1998. Present — Lawton, J. P., Hayes, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Motion for reargument granted and, upon reargument, motion for writ of error coram nobis granted and order entered April 17, 1998 and order entered and decision filed November 19,1997 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 entitled to a second examination pursuant to CPL 730.20 (1). Upon our review of the trial court proceedings, we conclude that the issue may have merit. Therefore, the order entered April 17, 1998 and the order entered and decision filed November 19, 1997 are 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 is directed to file and serve his brief on or before October 5, 1998. Present — Lawton, J. P., Hayes, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D.2d 995, 675 N.Y.S.2d 925, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mailey-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack