THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK RESPONDENT v. STEVEN HOWINGTON DEFENDANT APPELLANT (2014)

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

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. STEVEN A. HOWINGTON, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.

KA 09–02531

Decided: November 14, 2014

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO, ESQS., SYRACUSE (BRADLEY E. KEEM OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (VICTORIA M. WHITE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, from an order of the Onondaga County Court (Joseph E. Fahey, J.), entered October 30, 2009. The order denied the motion of defendant to vacate a judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10.

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

Finally, we do not address defendant's contention that he was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel on his direct appeal, raised in the context of this CPL article 440 motion. The proper vehicle for raising that contention “is by way of a motion for a writ of error coram nobis” (People v. Smith, 78 AD3d 1583, 1584) or, when the record is adequate, that contention may be raised, pro se, on direct appeal (see People v. McKinney, 302 A.D.2d 993, 995).

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court

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Out of date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