From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Holman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 23, 2009
63 A.D.3d 1088 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

June 23, 2009.

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), dated September 19, 2005, which denied, without a hearing, his motion pursuant to CPL 440.30 (1-a), inter alia, for additional DNA testing of evidence introduced against him at trial.

Before Rivera, J.P., Florio, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed.

The County Court properly denied the defendant's motion insofar as it challenged the admissibility of DNA evidence admitted at trial, since he previously challenged the admissibility of the DNA evidence on his direct appeal to this Court ( see People v Holman, 248 AD2d 637; CPL 440.10 [a]). Moreover, the court properly determined that CPL 440.30 (1-a) does not provide for retesting of DNA material ( see People v Jones, 307 AD2d 721).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

People v. Holman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 23, 2009
63 A.D.3d 1088 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

People v. Holman

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OP THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DAVID HOLMAN, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 23, 2009

Citations

63 A.D.3d 1088 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
880 N.Y.S.2d 559

Citing Cases

People v. Witherspoon

However, trial evidence established that forensic DNA testing was performed on the evidence in question.…

People v. Witherspoon

However, trial evidence established that forensic DNA testing was performed on the evidence in question.…