§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.William Monroe, Appellant.

Brief

15 Cited authorities

  1. Strickland v. Washington

    466 U.S. 668 (1984)   Cited 158,554 times   176 Legal Analyses
    Holding an "error by counsel" doesn't "warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding" where in the context of the whole proceeding the identified error "had no effect on the judgment"

  2. People v. Selikoff

    35 N.Y.2d 227 (N.Y. 1974)   Cited 526 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding court correctly refused to impose original terms of plea agreement after discovering defendant was actually a principal, not a pawn, in a fraudulent scheme, and holding that defendant's refusal to withdraw his plea did not entitle him to specific performance of original plea agreement

  3. People v. Rogers

    48 N.Y.2d 167 (N.Y. 1979)   Cited 340 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Rogers, the New York Court of Appeals held that where an arrestee is represented by counsel on an unrelated charge, and counsel orders the police to cease their questioning, the arrestee may not be questioned further unless counsel is present. 48 N.Y.2d at 169.

  4. People v. Paulin

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 5544 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 137 times
    Holding that although drug offenders who have committed parole violations are not statutorily ineligible for resentencing: “[i]t may be, of course, that many parole violators have shown by their conduct that they do not deserve relief from their sentences. .... if that is the case, courts can deny their resentencing applications”

  5. People v. Boston

    75 N.Y.2d 585 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 148 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Boston, defendant purported to waive indictment to attempted depraved indifference murder after he had been indicted for intentional murder and related offenses and without any felony complaint having been filed with respect to the new charge.

  6. People v. Fuggazzatto

    62 N.Y.2d 862 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 140 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In People v. Fuggazzatto (62 N.Y.2d 862), two indictments were filed simultaneously and were therefore subject to identical time periods for the People to announce their readiness for trial under CPL 30.30.

  7. People v. Taylor

    80 N.Y.2d 1 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 100 times
    Describing requirements for admission of past recollections recorded

  8. People v. Clark

    45 N.Y.2d 432 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 129 times
    In People v. Clark (45 N.Y.2d 432, supra), the court held that statements made by defendant at a police station approximately one hour after he had informed a police officer that he did not wish to answer questions without the assistance of counsel were inadmissible. The court stated (supra, p 439): "With respect to the statements the defendant made at the police station the trial court found they were admissible because the defendant had not been coerced.

  9. People v. Sosa

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 1101 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 45 times
    Noting that the 2009 DLRA should be interpreted in a manner "consistent with the legislation's necessarily broad remedial objectives in addressing the sequelae of the prior sentencing regimen and should not be effectively nullified as a matter of statutory interpretation"

  10. People v. Pichardo

    1 N.Y.3d 126 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 53 times
    In Pichardo, the earlier sentence was much the longer of the two, so that the promise of concurrent sentencing meant that the second sentence, entered on the plea, carried no additional jail time.