People v. Riley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Riley

281 A.D.2d 992, 727 N.Y.S.2d 366, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2893

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 992 (People v. Riley) 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. Riley, 281 A.D.2d 992, 727 N.Y.S.2d 366, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2893 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion for writ of error coram nobis granted and the order entered and decision filed March 31, 1999 (259 AD2d 1030) are hereby 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 denied his right to decide whether to testify at trial. Upon our review of the trial court proceedings, we conclude that the issue may have merit. Therefore, the order entered and decision filed March 31, 1999 are vacated and the Court will consider the appeal de novo (see, People v LeFrois, 151 AD2d 1046). Defendant is directed to file and serve his records and briefs on or before July 16, 2001. Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, and Scudder, 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 and the order entered and decision filed March 31, 1999 (259 AD2d 1030) are hereby 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 denied his right to decide whether to testify at trial. Upon our review of the trial court proceedings, we conclude that the issue may have merit. Therefore, the order entered and decision filed March 31, 1999 are vacated and the Court will consider the appeal de novo (see, People v LeFrois, 151 AD2d 1046). Defendant is directed to file and serve his records and briefs on or before July 16, 2001. Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, and Scudder, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 992, 727 N.Y.S.2d 366, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-riley-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack