§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Pernell A. Flanders, Appellant.

Brief

14 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Baldi

    54 N.Y.2d 137 (N.Y. 1981)   Cited 5,976 times   6 Legal Analyses
    In Baldi, the New York State Court of Appeals expressly applied the right to effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the federal Constitution.

  2. People v. Rivera

    71 N.Y.2d 705 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 1,832 times
    Holding petitioner who failed to show "the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations" for counsels' alleged shortcoming did not have viable claim to constitutionally ineffective counsel

  3. People v. Keindl

    68 N.Y.2d 410 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 411 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that multiplicity of acts encompassed in single counts made it virtually impossible to determine the particular act of sodomy or sexual abuse as to which the jury reached a unanimous verdict

  4. People v. Brown

    45 N.Y.2d 852 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 477 times
    Holding that because, "[g]enerally, the ineffectiveness of counsel is not demonstrable on the main record,... it would be better, and in some cases essential, that an appellate attack on the effectiveness of counsel be bottomed on an evidentiary exploration by collateral or post-conviction proceedings brought under CPL 440.10"

  5. People v. Julian

    41 N.Y.2d 340 (N.Y. 1977)   Cited 369 times
    In People v Julian (41 N.Y.2d 340 [involving various drugs]), Amaro v City of New York (40 N.Y.2d 30 [involving a blood sample]) and People v Connelly (35 N.Y.2d 171 [involving cocaine]), the problem was one of establishing that the substance which had been delivered for analysis (i.e., the "green vegetable matter" or "white powder" in People v Julian [supra] and People v Connelly [supra]; and the blood in Amaro v City of New York [supra]) was in fact a sample of the substance seized or purchased, or the blood taken.

  6. People v. Davis

    72 N.Y.2d 32 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 121 times
    Shooting pistol into the air does not constitute reckless endangerment in the first degree

  7. People v. Dalton

    27 A.D.3d 779 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 41 times

    15663. March 2, 2006. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chenango County (Sullivan, J.), rendered April 30, 2004, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of course of sexual conduct against a child (three counts), rape in the first degree (three counts), use of a child in a sexual performance (three counts), incest (four counts), criminal solicitation in the third degree (three counts) and endangering the welfare of a child (three counts). Alicia M. Nemec, Cooperstown, for appellant

  8. People v. Beauchamp

    74 N.Y.2d 639 (N.Y. 1989)   Cited 71 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding a nine-month period "excessive"; the defendant was charged with noncontinuous crimes

  9. People v. Perez

    83 N.Y.2d 269 (N.Y. 1994)   Cited 51 times
    In Perez and its companion case, People v. Vasquez, (83 N.Y.2d 269), proof apparently submitted to the Grand Jury in support of particular offenses was not reflected by particular counts in the indictment, possibly omitted through clerical error.

  10. People v. Jiminez

    239 A.D.2d 360 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 14 times

    May 5, 1997 Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.). Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reversing the defendant's conviction for rape in the first degree under the first count of the indictment, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment, with leave to the People, should they be so advised, to resubmit any appropriate charges arising out of the conduct underlying that