§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Howard Grubstein, Appellant.

Brief

17 Cited authorities

  1. Smith v. Robbins

    528 U.S. 259 (2000)   Cited 8,536 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the proper standard for evaluating claim that appellate counsel was ineffective ... is that enunciated in Strickland"

  2. Penson v. Ohio

    488 U.S. 75 (1988)   Cited 9,825 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the presumption of prejudice must extend as well to the denial of counsel on appeal" when the granting of an attorney's motion to withdraw had left the petitioner "entirely without the assistance of counsel on appeal"

  3. People v. Syville

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 7249 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 298 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Granting coram nobis relief

  4. People v. Cooks

    67 N.Y.2d 100 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 307 times
    Holding that the purpose of C.P.L. § 440.10(b) is to prevent a motion to vacate from being employed as a substitute for a direct appeal when defendant is in a position to raise such issues on appeal

  5. People v. Providence

    2 N.Y.3d 579 (N.Y. 2004)   Cited 168 times
    Finding a valid waiver because "the trial judge repeatedly and adequately warned [the defendant] of the dangers of self-representation, and gave him several opportunities to express a change of heart"

  6. People v. Kinchen

    60 N.Y.2d 772 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 260 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Kinchen, the Court of Appeals had held that a claim could not be properly considered where there was no proof in the record with regard to the defendant's allegations.

  7. People v. Montgomery

    24 N.Y.2d 130 (N.Y. 1969)   Cited 180 times
    In Montgomery, the Court of Appeals held that a defendant "should be resentenced so that his time to appeal will run anew" if he is able to establish that his failure to appeal resulted from omissions by his counsel.

  8. People v. Hoffler

    74 A.D.3d 1632 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 22 times
    Noting that on-the-record ineffective assistance claims are not subject to § 440.10(c) procedural bar when defendants are represented by their trial counsel on appeal

  9. People v. West

    100 N.Y.2d 23 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 26 times
    In West, the petitioner incorrectly filed habeas corpus actions in state court before exhausting his state court appeals.

  10. People v. Grubstein

    37 Misc. 3d 142 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 3 times

    No. 2011–314 OR CR. 2012-12-10 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant,- v. Howard GRUBSTEIN, Respondent. Appeal from an order of the Justice Court of the Town of Tuxedo, Orange County (Shawn M. Brown, J.), dated January 6, 2011. The order granted defendant's motion to vacate a judgment convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of driving while intoxicated. Present: NICOLAI, P.J., IANNACCI and LaSALLE, JJ. ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, and defendant's motion to vacate

  11. Section 671.5 - Additional duties of the court and the court clerk, where defendant appears pro se in the trial court

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 671.5   Cited 166 times

    If a defendant shall have appeared pro se in the trial court, then, upon imposing sentence or upon the denial of a motion made pursuant to C PL 440.10 or 440.20 or the denial or dismissal of the habeas corpus or CPLR article 78 application or proceeding, the trial court shall concurrently advise the defendant of his right to appeal or to make application for permission to appeal or for a certificate granting leave to appeal, as the case may be. The court shall also concurrently advise the defendant