From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People of N.Y. v. Crenshaw

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 17, 2006
34 A.D.3d 1315 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

No. KA 04-00278.

November 17, 2006.

Appeal, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Stephen R. Sirkin, A.J.), entered December 31, 2003. The order denied defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate a judgment convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree.

Before: Present — Hurlbutt, A.P.J., Scudder, Gorski, Centra and Green, JJ.


It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from an order denying his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate a judgment convicting him of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15), defendant contends that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying the motion without conducting a hearing. We reject that contention. Pursuant to CPL 440.30 (4) (d), the court has discretion to deny a CPL 440.10 motion where, as here, "the allegations essential to support the motion are contradicted by the record and there is no reasonable possibility that they are true" ( People v. Bonilla, 6 AD3d 1059, 1061; cf. People v. Staton, 224 AD2d 984). We have examined defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are lacking in merit.


Summaries of

People of N.Y. v. Crenshaw

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 17, 2006
34 A.D.3d 1315 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

People of N.Y. v. Crenshaw

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WILLIAM CRENSHAW…

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

Date published: Nov 17, 2006

Citations

34 A.D.3d 1315 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 8514
823 N.Y.S.2d 794

Citing Cases

People v. Watson

Given the circumstances in this case, no reasonable possibility exists that counsel either failed to advise…

People v. Nowlin

That contention, however, is based on defendant's contention that there was no clause in the drug court…