At page 1316 Discretion to deny motion based on record contradiction5 citing cases“there is no reasonable possibility”
- People v. Becoats, 117 A.D.3d 1465 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2014).published Never theless, in light of the information the People provided to trial counsel regarding the purported observations of the federal prisoner, we cannot conclude on the record before us that “ ‘there is no reasonable possibility’ ” that the…
- People v. Nowlin, 145 A.D.3d 1447 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2016).published The court therefore had discretion to deny the motion pursuant to CPL 440.30 (4) (d), because “the allegations essential to support the motion are contradicted by the record and there is no reasonable possibility that they are true” (Peopl…
- Becoats, Corey E., People v., No. KA 13-00671 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't May 2, 2014).published
Other citing cases
- Nowlin, Quintin a., People v., No. KA 11-01423 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't Dec. 23, 2016).published
v.
William Crenshaw
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.
[*1316] 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 [4]), 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 [2004]; cf. People v Staton, 224 AD2d 984 [1996]). We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are lacking in merit. Present— Hurlbutt, A.PJ., Scudder, Gorski, Centra and Green, JJ.