People v. Dover

3 Citing cases

  1. People v. Jones

    109 A.D.3d 1108 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 12 times

    With respect to the sufficiency of County Court's order, we agree with defendant that the court's statement that it denied defendant's motion “for the reasons set forth in the People's response” was insufficient to satisfy the requirements of CPL 440.30(7) ( see generally People v. Isaacs, 71 A.D.3d 1162, 1162, 896 N.Y.S.2d 913;People v. Williams, 184 A.D.2d 608, 608, 584 N.Y.S.2d 634;cf. People v. Watkins, 79 A.D.3d 1648, 1648–1649, 913 N.Y.S.2d 620,lv. denied16 N.Y.3d 800, 919 N.Y.S.2d 517, 944 N.E.2d 1157). We nevertheless conclude that the record is sufficient to enable us to intelligently review the order denying defendant's motion ( see People v. Dover, 294 A.D.2d 594, 595, 743 N.Y.S.2d 501,lv. denied98 N.Y.2d 767, 752 N.Y.S.2d 7, 781 N.E.2d 919;People v. Neely, 219 A.D.2d 444, 446, 645 N.Y.S.2d 494,lv. denied88 N.Y.2d 1023, 651 N.Y.S.2d 22, 673 N.E.2d 1249;see generallyCPL 470.15[1] ). We therefore decline to hold the matter and to remit it for a statement in accordance with CPL 440.30(7), particularly in light of the fact that the County Court judge who originally heard the motion has since retired ( see Dover, 294 A.D.2d at 594, 743 N.Y.S.2d 501).

  2. Rosario v. Bennett

    01 Civ. 7142 (RMB) (AJP) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2002)   Cited 81 times
    Holding that petitioner's failure to assert claim "as part of his first § 440 motion mandates dismissal of that claim under the adequate and independent state ground doctrine"

    Here, C.P.L. § 440.10(3)(c) — the rule that § 440 courts may dismiss claims not raised in prior § 440 motions — is a "firmly established and regularly followed" rule. See, e.g., People v. Dover, 294 A.D.2d 594, 596, 743 N.Y.S.2d 501, 503 (2d Dep't 2002) (dismissing under, inter alia, C.P.L. § 440.10(3)(c) because defendant could have raised ineffective counsel claim in prior § 440 motion); People v. Dominguez, 257 A.D.2d 511, 512, 685 N.Y.S.2d 14, 15 (1st Dep't) ("The court properly denied defendant's CPL 440.10 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, on the ground that defendant had filed a previous CPL 440.10 motion and could have raised the issues set forth in the second application on the first but failed to do so (CPL 440.10 [3] [c])."), appeal denied, 93 N.Y.2d 872, 689 N.Y.S.2d 434 (1999). Moreover, district courts in this Circuit have consistently held that C.P.L. § 440.10(3)(c) constitutes an adequate and independent state ground barring habeas review.

  3. People v. Krivak

    186 A.D.3d 1712 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    The People appeal.Initially, to the extent the County Court failed to comply with the requirement to "set forth on the record its findings of fact, its conclusions of law and the reasons for its determination" as required by CPL 440.30(7), we find that the record is sufficient to enable us to intelligently review the order granting the defendant's motion, and thus, make our own findings of fact and conclusions of law (seePeople v. Mingo, 141 A.D.3d 423, 35 N.Y.S.3d 80 ; People v. Dover, 294 A.D.2d 594, 595, 743 N.Y.S.2d 501 ). CPL 440.10(1)(g) provides that a court may vacate a defendant's judgment of conviction on the ground of newly discovered evidence where, insofar as relevant here, the evidence "is of such character as to create a probability that had such evidence been received at the trial the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant."