You are here: / / DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION...
,

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON THE GROUND DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO INFORM HIM THE DECISION WHETHER TO TESTIFY WAS HIS TO MAKE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a hearing was required on defendant motion to vacate his conviction alleging defense counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him the decision whether to testify was defendant’s to make:

… [T]he court erred in denying his motion without a hearing with respect to whether defense counsel fulfilled his duty of advising defendant that his decision to testify was ultimately his own, not defense counsel’s, to make (see People v Cosby, 82 AD3d 63, 66 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 857 [2011]). Defendant has made a proper showing for a hearing by asserting a viable legal basis for the motion, substantiated by his own unrefuted sworn allegations and other evidentiary submissions … , and neither the mandatory denial provisions of CPL 440.10 (2) nor the permissive denial provisions of CPL 440.10 (3) apply to this case … . Cosby, relied on by both the court and the People in support of denying the motion, is distinguishable from this case inasmuch as a hearing pursuant to CPL 440.30 (5) was held in Cosby, thereby permitting us to determine on the merits that defendant was not deprived of his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel and, consequently, that his right to a fair trial was not seriously compromised … . No such determination on the merits can be made on the record before us. We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a hearing pursuant to CPL 440.30 (5) on that part of defendant’s motion. People v Mirabella, 2020 NY Slip Op 05388, Fourth Dept 10-2-20

 

You might also like
CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR THE SALE OF SMALL AMOUNTS OF COCAINE UNDULY HARSH, CONCURRENT SENTENCES IMPOSED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE OFFICER’S TESTIMONY HE COULD NOT SEE INSIDE THE CAR FROM A DISTANCE OF 10 TO 15 FEET PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE TO STOP THE CAR FOR A “TINTED WINDOWS” VIOLATION; THE DISSENT ARGUED IT WAS DARK AT THE TIME OF THE STOP AND THE OFFICER DID NOT LINK HIS INABILITY TO SEE INSIDE THE CAR TO THE TINTED WINDOWS AS OPPOSED TO THE AMBIENT DARKNESS (FOURTH DEPT). ​
ANONYMOUS 911 CALL JUSTIFIED TRAFFIC STOP; DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE STATUTE ALLOWING ONLY MEMBERS OF THE RELEVANT PARTY TO SUBMIT WRITE-IN BALLOTS IN A PRIMARY ELECTION IS CONSTITUTIONAL (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT IN “CLOSE PROXIMITY” TO THE DRUGS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE “ROOM” OR “DRUG FACTORY” PRESUMPTION; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY HAD BEGUN WORKING FOR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE AT THE TIME DEFENDANT ENTERED HIS PLEA; DEFENDANT WAS THEREBY DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL; PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).
Court’s Limited Role Re: Contract with Arbitration Clause Explained
No Requirement that Defendant Submit Affidavit in Support of Suppression Motion; No Requirement Defendant Deny Commission of Charged Offense to Warrant a Hearing on a Suppression Motion

Categories

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

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS WERE JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY... THE MERE PRESENCE OF A REINSTATEMENT CLAUSE IN THE MORTGAGE, WHICH ESSENTIALLY...