From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Nathan Baxter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 30, 1996
234 A.D.2d 932 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

December 30, 1996.

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

Present — Green, J.P., Lawton, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.


We reserved decision and remitted this matter to Onondaga County Court to make findings of fact and a determination whether defendant was present at the in-chambers Sandoval hearing ( People v Baxter, 226 AD2d 1116). The testimony at the reconstruction hearing supports the court's determination that defendant was present at the hearing ( see, People v Terry, 225 AD2d 1058, lv denied 88 NY2d 886).

The contention that trial counsel was ineffective in failing properly to move for dismissal of the indictment was not raised when the appeal was initially heard ( People v Baxter,

216 AD2d 931), and it may not be raised for the first time following our remittal for a reconstruction hearing ( see, People v Cameron, 209 AD2d 159, 160). (Resubmission of Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J."Rape, 1st Degree.)


Summaries of

People v. Nathan Baxter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 30, 1996
234 A.D.2d 932 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

People v. Nathan Baxter

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. NATHAN BAXTER…

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

Date published: Dec 30, 1996

Citations

234 A.D.2d 932 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
653 N.Y.S.2d 464

Citing Cases

People v. Muridi M.

The court did not abuse its discretion in determining that there were no mitigating circumstances that…

People v. Muridi M.

The court did not abuse its discretion in determining that there were no mitigating circumstances that…