People v. Watson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Watson

49 A.D.3d 570, 853 N.Y.2d 581

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

DecidedMarch 4, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 570 (People v. Watson) 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. Watson, 49 A.D.3d 570, 853 N.Y.2d 581 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment was correctly denied because the contention that his plea allocution was insufficient could have been raised on his direct appeal and there has been no retroactively effective change in the law controlling that issue (see CPL 440.10 [2] [a]; Policano v Herbert, 7 NY3d 588, 603 [2006]). The defendant’s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel was improperly raised on this CPL 440.10 motion. The proper procedure for addressing such a claim is an application for a writ of error coram nobis addressed to this Court (see People v Bachert, 69 NY2d 593, 595-596 [1987]; People v Velez, 286 AB2d 406 [2001]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Garni, JJ., concur.

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

The defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment was correctly denied because the contention that his plea allocution was insufficient could have been raised on his direct appeal and there has been no retroactively effective change in the law controlling that issue (see CPL 440.10 [2] [a]; Policano v Herbert, 7 NY3d 588, 603 [2006]). The defendant’s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel was improperly raised on this CPL 440.10 motion. The proper procedure for addressing such a claim is an application for a writ of error coram nobis addressed to this Court (see People v Bachert, 69 NY2d 593, 595-596 [1987]; People v Velez, 286 AB2d 406 [2001]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Garni, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 570, 853 N.Y.2d 581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-watson-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack