From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Peoples

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jun 14, 2017
151 A.D.3d 889 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

06-14-2017

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Michael PEOPLES, appellant.

Michael Peoples, Stormville, NY, appellant pro se. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott, and Deborah E. Wassel of counsel), for respondent. Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, NY (Dina Zloczower of counsel), former appellate counsel.


Michael Peoples, Stormville, NY, appellant pro se.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott, and Deborah E. Wassel of counsel), for respondent.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, NY (Dina Zloczower of counsel), former appellate counsel.

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated March 18, 2015 (People v. Peoples, 126 A.D.3d 919, 4 N.Y.S.3d 309 ), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered May 9, 2013.

ORDERED that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel (see Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 103 S.Ct. 3308, 77 L.Ed.2d 987 ; People v. Stultz, 2 N.Y.3d 277, 778 N.Y.S.2d 431, 810 N.E.2d 883 ).

DILLON, J.P., LEVENTHAL, SGROI and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Peoples

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jun 14, 2017
151 A.D.3d 889 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

People v. Peoples

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Michael PEOPLES, appellant.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Jun 14, 2017

Citations

151 A.D.3d 889 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
151 A.D.3d 889

Citing Cases

Peoples v. Martuscello

) On June 14, 2017, the Appellate Division denied the motion, finding that Petitioner had failed to establish…