People v. Ryan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ryan

40 A.D.2d 756, 337 N.Y.S.2d 793, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3649

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

DecidedOctober 26, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.2d 756 (People v. Ryan) 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. Ryan, 40 A.D.2d 756, 337 N.Y.S.2d 793, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3649 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was tried and convicted of rape in January and February, 1968. In this coram nobis application he alleges that he had inadequate representation by counsel because his assigned attorneys failed to consult with him suffi[757]*757ciently before the trial and failed to make suitable trial preparation. We note that the application was made before the same Judge who conducted the trial. The trial minutes show that defendant received adequate representation by counsel. Defendant’s direct appeal from the judgment of conviction was presented through a different attorney from the one who tried the case, but defendant did not raise thereon the question of inadequacy of trial counsel; and in this application defendant has failed to specify any manner in which his representation upon the trial was inadequate. (Appeal from order of Niagara County Court denying motion to vacate judgment of conviction rendered February 21, 1968.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Marsh, Witmer, Cardamone and Henry, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was tried and convicted of rape in January and February, 1968. In this coram nobis application he alleges that he had inadequate representation by counsel because his assigned attorneys failed to consult with him suffi[757]*757ciently before the trial and failed to make suitable trial preparation. We note that the application was made before the same Judge who conducted the trial. The trial minutes show that defendant received adequate representation by counsel. Defendant’s direct appeal from the judgment of conviction was presented through a different attorney from the one who tried the case, but defendant did not raise thereon the question of inadequacy of trial counsel; and in this application defendant has failed to specify any manner in which his representation upon the trial was inadequate. (Appeal from order of Niagara County Court denying motion to vacate judgment of conviction rendered February 21, 1968.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Marsh, Witmer, Cardamone and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 756, 337 N.Y.S.2d 793, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ryan-nyappdiv-1972.