People v. Major

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Major

96 A.D.3d 677, 947 N.Y.S.2d 110

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

DecidedJune 28, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 96 A.D.3d 677 (People v. Major) 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. Major, 96 A.D.3d 677, 947 N.Y.S.2d 110 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered December 1, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of marijuana in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second drug offender previously convicted of a violent felony, to a term of two years, held in abeyance, and the matter remitted for a suppression hearing. Order, same court and Justice, entered on or about [678]*678May 18, 2011, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment of conviction, unanimously affirmed.

The court was correct in summarily denying the CPL 440.10 motion since sufficient facts appear on the record on the direct appeal to permit our review (CPL 440.10 [2] [b]). However, the record on the direct appeal supports defendant’s contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. The actions of the officers in stopping defendant and seizing the bag he had been carrying were of questionable propriety, and raised a colorable basis for suppression (see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]). Under the circumstances, defense counsel’s admitted failure to timely file a suppression motion, or to provide good cause or strategic reasons for such failure, constituted ineffective assistance (see People v Vega, 276 AD2d 414, 414 [2000]; People v Ferguson, 114 AD2d 226, 230 [1986]). Accordingly, we hold the appeal in abeyance and remand the matter for a suppression hearing (id.). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Freedman and Richter, JJ.

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

Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered December 1, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of marijuana in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second drug offender previously convicted of a violent felony, to a term of two years, held in abeyance, and the matter remitted for a suppression hearing. Order, same court and Justice, entered on or about [678]*678May 18, 2011, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment of conviction, unanimously affirmed.

The court was correct in summarily denying the CPL 440.10 motion since sufficient facts appear on the record on the direct appeal to permit our review (CPL 440.10 [2] [b]). However, the record on the direct appeal supports defendant’s contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. The actions of the officers in stopping defendant and seizing the bag he had been carrying were of questionable propriety, and raised a colorable basis for suppression (see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]). Under the circumstances, defense counsel’s admitted failure to timely file a suppression motion, or to provide good cause or strategic reasons for such failure, constituted ineffective assistance (see People v Vega, 276 AD2d 414, 414 [2000]; People v Ferguson, 114 AD2d 226, 230 [1986]). Accordingly, we hold the appeal in abeyance and remand the matter for a suppression hearing (id.). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Freedman and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A.D.3d 677, 947 N.Y.S.2d 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-major-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack