Legal Opinion
People v. Kordish
New York Court of Appeals
Decided October 17, 2013PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and *923the matter remitted to that court for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.
Where, as in New York, a state provides for an appeal as of right from a criminal conviction, the United States Constitution compels the state to provide an indigent defendant with an attorney to represent the defendant on appeal (see Evitts v Lucey, 469 US 387, 393-394 [1985]; Douglas v California, 372 US 353, 356-357 [1963]). Furthermore, where “an indigent defendant seeks appellate review that (1) involves…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Douglas v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Evitts v. LuceySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Halbert v. MichiganSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Jose Martin Taveras v. Superintendent Joseph T. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2006
- People v. EvansNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- People v. PerezNew York Court of Appeals · 2014
- People v. Rivera (Senate)Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 2019