People v. Pickett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pickett

67 A.D.3d 1458, 887 N.Y.S.2d 922

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 13, 2009·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Motion for writ of error coram nobis granted. 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, in failing to argue that County Court erred in ordering restitution inasmuch as it was not part of the plea bargain. Upon our review of the trial court proceedings, we conclude that the issue may have merit. Therefore, the order of March 14, 2008 is vacated and this Court will consider the appeal de novo (see People v LeFroise, 151 AD2d 1046). Defendant is directed to perfect his appeal on or before January 12, 2010. Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Centra, Fahey and Peradotto, 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. 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, in failing to argue that County Court erred in ordering restitution inasmuch as it was not part of the plea bargain. Upon our review of the trial court proceedings, we conclude that the issue may have merit. Therefore, the order of March 14, 2008 is vacated and this Court will consider the appeal de novo (see People v LeFroise, 151 AD2d 1046). Defendant is directed to perfect his appeal on or before January 12, 2010. Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Centra, Fahey and Peradotto, JJ.

People v. Pickett, 67 A.D.3d 1458, 887 N.Y.S.2d 922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

67 A.D.3d 1458 (People v. Pickett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related