PEOPLE v. CRENSHAW (2006)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. William CRENSHAW, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: November 17, 2006

PRESENT: HURLBUTT, A.P.J., SCUDDER, GORSKI, CENTRA, AND GREEN, JJ.

Richard W. Youngman, Conflict Defender, Rochester (R. Adrian Solomon of Counsel), for Defendant-Appellant. Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Margaret A. Jones of Counsel), for Plaintiff-Respondent.

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 A.D.3d 1059, 1061, 775 N.Y.S.2d 619; cf. People v. Staton, 224 A.D.2d 984, 637 N.Y.S.2d 838). We have examined defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are lacking in merit.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network