You are here: / / DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, CONVICTION ...
,

DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, CONVICTION REVERSED.

The Court of Appeals, in a memorandum decision that does not explain the relevant facts, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel. People v Maldonado, 2017 NY Slip Op 01254, CtApp 2-16-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, CONVICTIION REVERSED)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, CONVICTIION REVERSED)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (ATTORNEYS, CRIMINAL LAW, (DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, CONVICTIION REVERSED)

/by
You might also like
Defendant Should Not Have Been Denied His Right to Testify Before the Grand Jury Because He Struck Out Waiver Provisions Not Required by Statute
THE SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT (SARA), PROHIIBITING CERTAIN SEX OFFENDERS FROM RESIDING WITHIN 1000 FEET OF A SCHOOL, APPLIES TO SEX OFFENDERS WHO ARE UNDER POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS); THE DISSENT ARGUED SARA, BY ITS TERMS, APPLIES ONLY TO THOSE ON PAROLE OR CONDITIONALLY RELEASED (CT APP).
Substitute Judge Can Rule on Motion Argued Before Another Judge
STANDARD FOR REVIEW OF GOING-PRIVATE MERGERS ANNOUNCED; SHAREHOLDER CLASS ACTION CHALLENGING THE GOING-PRIVATE MERGER DISMISSED.
FAMILY COURT MADE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO REUNITE MOTHER, WHO IS INTELLECTUALLY DISABLED, WITH HER CHILD, WHO WAS REMOVED AFTER A NEGLECT FINDING, THE APPLICABILITY OF REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) AND THE ADA’S INTERPLAY WITH NEW YORK LAW IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (CT APP).
Felony Convictions in Other Jurisdictions Need Not Have a New-York-Felony Counterpart to Be Considered Under the Persistent Felony Offender Statute
Failure to Turn Over to the Defendant Grand Jury Minutes Use by the Judge in SORA Risk Calculation Violated Due Process
THE APPELLATE DIVISION INITIALLY REVERSED SUPREME COURT AND HELD PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) LADDER-FALL CASE; THERE WAS A DEFENSE VERDICT AFTER TRIAL; THE ORDER DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS NOT APPEALABLE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

TREE ROOT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE OPEN AND OBVIOUS... TESTIMONY BY OFFICER WHO WAS PRESENT BUT DID NOT ADMINISTER THE DWI BREATHALYZER...