People v. Glinton, 543 N.E.2d 736 (N.Y. 1989). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Glinton, 543 N.E.2d 736 (N.Y. 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Phelps (nyappdiv, 2025-03-20)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Phelps
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
Thus, we cannot say that County Court (Smrtic, J.) abused its discretion in summarily denying so much of the instant motion as asserts counsel misadvised defendant about his parole eligibility ( see People v Glinton , 74 NY2d 779, 780 [1989]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Sheppard
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
As these issues were considered and resolved upon the prior appeal, they are not now properly before us (see CPL 440.10 [3] [b]; People v Glinton, 74 NY2d 779, 780 [1989]; People v De Oliveira, 223 AD2d 766, 769 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 1020 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Sheppard
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
As these issues were considered and resolved upon the prior appeal, they are not now properly before us (see CPL 440.10 [3] [b]; People v Glinton, 74 NY2d 779, 780 [1989]; People v De Oliveira, 223 AD2d 766, 769 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 1020 [1996]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Charles Glinton, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Jul 11, 1989.
543 N.E.2d 736
1989 N.Y. LEXIS 880
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Salvatore D. Ferlazzo for appellant., Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney (Julie Freudenheim of counsel), for respondent.
Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa Concur.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of Supreme Court should be affirmed.

Supreme Court acted within its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to vacate his 1959 judgment of conviction without an evidentiary hearing. The merits of the "newly discovered evidence” issue raised in this collateral proceeding were previously decided on a prior CPL 440.10 motion (CPL 440.10 [3] [b]).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.