People v. Villante

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Villante

292 A.D.2d 638, 739 N.Y.S.2d 604, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3224

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

DecidedMarch 25, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 292 A.D.2d 638 (People v. Villante) 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. Villante, 292 A.D.2d 638, 739 N.Y.S.2d 604, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3224 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate a decision and order of this Court, dated May 2, 1994 (People v Villante, 204 AD2d 369), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered April 23, 1992, on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. By decision and order of this Court, dated August 13, 2001, the appellant was granted leave to file a brief, and, in effect, the coram nobis application was held in abeyance in the interim.

Ordered that the application is denied.

Appellate counsel’s failure to raise the issue of double jeopardy cannot be considered ineffective assistance of counsel because the defendant failed to raise that claim prior to the entry of the judgment of conviction (see People v La Ruffa, 37 NY2d 58, cert denied 423 US 917). Prudenti, P.J., Feuerstein, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate a decision and order of this Court, dated May 2, 1994 (People v Villante, 204 AD2d 369), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered April 23, 1992, on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. By decision and order of this Court, dated August 13, 2001, the appellant was granted leave to file a brief, and, in effect, the coram nobis application was held in abeyance in the interim.

Ordered that the application is denied.

Appellate counsel’s failure to raise the issue of double jeopardy cannot be considered ineffective assistance of counsel because the defendant failed to raise that claim prior to the entry of the judgment of conviction (see People v La Ruffa, 37 NY2d 58, cert denied 423 US 917). Prudenti, P.J., Feuerstein, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 638, 739 N.Y.S.2d 604, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-villante-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack