Williams v. Scully

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. Scully

135 A.D.2d 721, 522 N.Y.S.2d 621, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52659

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

DecidedDecember 21, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 135 A.D.2d 721 (Williams v. Scully) 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

Williams v. Scully, 135 A.D.2d 721, 522 N.Y.S.2d 621, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52659 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Braatz, J.), dated August 1, 1985, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Generally, claims which were or could have been reviewed on direct appeal from a judgment of conviction are not subject to review by habeas corpus (see, People ex rel. Phifer v Scully, 107 AD2d 729). Nor do the facts of this case indicate a violation of the petitioner’s fundamental constitutional rights such as to warrant a departure from traditional orderly procedure (cf., Stone v Powell, 428 US 465; People ex rel. Keitt v McMann, 18 NY2d 257). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Lawrence, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

— In a habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Braatz, J.), dated August 1, 1985, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Generally, claims which were or could have been reviewed on direct appeal from a judgment of conviction are not subject to review by habeas corpus (see, People ex rel. Phifer v Scully, 107 AD2d 729). Nor do the facts of this case indicate a violation of the petitioner’s fundamental constitutional rights such as to warrant a departure from traditional orderly procedure (cf., Stone v Powell, 428 US 465; People ex rel. Keitt v McMann, 18 NY2d 257). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Lawrence, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 A.D.2d 721, 522 N.Y.S.2d 621, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-scully-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack