From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Thomas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 28, 2010
79 A.D.3d 1153 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 2007-02273.

December 28, 2010.

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 September 15, 2009 ( People v Thomas, 65 AD3d 1170), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered January 30, 2007. Application by the appellant for leave to serve and file additional papers in support of his application for a writ of error coram nobis.

Sheldon Thomas, Pine City, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Sholom J. Twersky of counsel), for respondent.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (William Kastin of counsel), former appellate counsel.

Before: Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ.


Ordered that the application for leave to serve and file additional papers is denied; and it is further,

Ordered that the application for a writ of error coram nobis is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel ( see Jones v Barnes, 463 US 745; People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277).


Summaries of

People v. Thomas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 28, 2010
79 A.D.3d 1153 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

People v. Thomas

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. SHELDON THOMAS…

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

Date published: Dec 28, 2010

Citations

79 A.D.3d 1153 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 9948
913 N.Y.S.2d 583

Citing Cases

Thomas v. N.Y. Dep't of Corr.

The Appellate Division denied the petitioner's application on December 28, 2010, ruling that he had failed to…

People v. Thomas

Given that the record as a whole affirmatively establishes that defendant understood and accepted the terms…