People ex rel. Douglas v. Vincent

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 50 N.Y.2d 901, 431 N.Y.S.2d 518, 409 N.E.2d 990, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2468

Decision Date: 6/10/1980

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: People ex rel. Douglas v. Vincent, 50 N.Y.2d 901, 431 N.Y.S.2d 518, 409 N.E.2d 990, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2468 (1980)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 1980

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 2% most-cited · cited by 102 decisions

102

Citing decisions

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.87

2d Cir.4

S.D.N.Y.4

N.Y.3

W.D.N.Y.3

N.Y. Sup. Ct.1

Most recently cited by10

2020People ex rel. Rodriguez v. Fludd N.Y. App. Div.
2020People ex rel. Ward v. Awopetu N.Y. App. Div.
2020People ex rel. Tse v. Barometre N.Y. App. Div.
2019People ex rel., Calixte v. Simpson N.Y. App. Div.
2017People ex rel. Cassar ex rel. Medrano v. Margiotta N.Y. App. Div.
2017People ex rel. Fox ex rel. Martinez-Jacquez v. Ponte N.Y. App. Div.
2017People ex rel. Smith v. Artus N.Y. App. Div.
2016People ex rel. McBride v. Warden N.Y. App. Div.
2015Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. ex rel. Kiko v. Presti N.Y. App. Div.
2015THE NONHUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT, INC. v. PRESTI, CARMEN N.Y. App. Div.

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

The People of the State of New York ex rel. Simon Douglas, Jr., Appellant, v Leon J. Vincent, as Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Attorneys

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Domenick J. Porco for appellant.
Lawrence T. Kurlander, District Attorney (Melvin Bressler of counsel), for respondent.

majority

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed on so much of the reasoning of that court’s Per Curiam opinion as relates to the procedural limitation which places the petitioner’s grievances beyond habeas corpus relief.

In addition we would note that even if there were merit to the relator’s contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial or on appeal he would not be entitled to habeas corpus relief because the only remedy he seeks would provide him a new trial or new appeal, and not a direction that he be immediately released from custody.

We do not consider it appropriate to suggest what type of proceeding relator may pursue. Thus we express no view as to whether the contention that relator was deprived of effective assistance of counsel on appeal may be heard in a proceeding in the nature of coram nobis.