green
Positive treatment
Issue: must consider factorsNY ↗
Issue: ineffective assistance claimNY ↗
7.4 score
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Douglas
A "court order to obtain a bodily sample from a suspect may be issued provided the People establish (1) probable cause to believe the suspect has committed the crime, (2) a clear indication that relevant material evidence will be found, and (3) the method used to secure it is safe and reliable" ( People v Watkins , 180 AD3d 1222, 1231 [3d Dept 2020] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted], lv denied 35 NY3d 1030 [2020]; see People v Roshia , 133 AD3d 1029, 1030 [3d Dept 2015], affd 28 NY3d 989 [2016]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Watkins
Under the guidelines established by the Court of Appeals, a court order to obtain a bodily sample from a suspect may be issued "provided the People establish (1) probable cause to believe the suspect has committed the crime, (2) a 'clear indication' that relevant material evidence will be found, and (3) the method used to secure it is safe and reliable" ( Matter of Abe A. , 56 NY2d 288, 291 [1982]; accord People v Roshia , 133 AD3d 1029, 1030 [2015], affd 28 NY3d 989 [2016]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Stover
A claim will fail so long as the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of a particular case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation" ( People v Criss , 151 AD3d 1275, 1280 [2017] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted], lv denied 30 NY3d 979 [2017]; see People v Roshia , 133 AD3d 1029, 1031 [2015], affd 28 NY3d 989 [2016]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Stover
A claim will fail so long as the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of a particular case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation" ( People v Criss , 151 AD3d 1275, 1280 [2017] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted], lv denied 30 NY3d 979 [2017]; see People v Roshia , 133 AD3d 1029, 1031 [2015], affd 28 NY3d 989 [2016]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
James M. Roshia, Jr.
v.
James M. Roshia, Jr.
New York Court of Appeals.
Oct 20, 2016.
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Albert F. Lawrence, Greenfield Center, for appellant., Alexander Lesyk, Special Prosecutor, Norwood, for respondent.
Abdus, Difiore, Fahey, Garcia, Pigott, Rivera, Salaam, Stein.
Cited by 16 opinions | Published
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Defendant was indicted by a grand jury, a sexual assault evidence kit was taken from the victim, and County Court’s order directing defendant to provide a DNA sample was authorized by statute (CPL 240.40 [2] [b] [v]). Accordingly, County Court did not err in granting the People’s application directing defendant to provide a buccal swab for testing.
Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein, Fahey and Garcia concur.On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, in a memorandum.