From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. James

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 13, 2017
156 A.D.3d 724 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

2003–01948 Ind. No. 2311/01

12-13-2017

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Andrew JAMES, appellant.

Andrew James, Wallkill, NY, appellant pro se. Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Solomon Neubort of counsel), for respondent. Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Joshua M. Levine of counsel), former appellate counsel.


Andrew James, Wallkill, NY, appellant pro se.Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Solomon Neubort of counsel), for respondent.

Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Joshua M. Levine of counsel), former appellate counsel.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDERApplication 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 June 20, 2005 ( People v. James, 19 A.D.3d 616, 797 N.Y.S.2d 129 ), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered February 25, 2003.

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 ).

MASTRO, J.P., CHAMBERS, AUSTIN and DUFFY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. James

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 13, 2017
156 A.D.3d 724 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

People v. James

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Andrew JAMES, appellant.

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

Date published: Dec 13, 2017

Citations

156 A.D.3d 724 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
64 N.Y.S.3d 919

Citing Cases

People v. Collado

Petitioner's double jeopardy claim could have been raised upon his direct appeal from the relevant judgment…