People v. Shegog

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Shegog

23 A.D.3d 1158, 807 N.Y.S.2d 764

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

DecidedNovember 10, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 23 A.D.3d 1158 (People v. Shegog) 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. Shegog, 23 A.D.3d 1158, 807 N.Y.S.2d 764 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

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, that trial counsel took an adverse position to defendant’s pro se CPL 330.30 motion. Upon our review of the trial court proceedings, we conclude that the issue may have merit. Therefore, the order of November 15, 1989 is vacated and this Court will consider the appeal de novo (see People v Vasquez, 70 NY2d 1 [1987], rearg denied 70 NY2d 748 [1987]; [1159]*1159People v LeFrois, 151 AD2d 1046 [1989]). Defendant is directed to file and serve his records and briefs with this Court on or before January 9, 2006. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Kehoe, Pine and Lawton, 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, that trial counsel took an adverse position to defendant’s pro se CPL 330.30 motion. Upon our review of the trial court proceedings, we conclude that the issue may have merit. Therefore, the order of November 15, 1989 is vacated and this Court will consider the appeal de novo (see People v Vasquez, 70 NY2d 1 [1987], rearg denied 70 NY2d 748 [1987]; [1159]*1159People v LeFrois, 151 AD2d 1046 [1989]). Defendant is directed to file and serve his records and briefs with this Court on or before January 9, 2006. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Kehoe, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.3d 1158, 807 N.Y.S.2d 764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-shegog-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack