Legal Opinion

People v. Kinchen

New York Court of Appeals

Decided October 20, 1983PublishedCited by 269 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant correctly points out that a claimed deprivation of the State constitutional right to counsel may be raised on appeal, notwithstanding that the issue was not preserved by having been specifically raised in a suppression motion or at trial (People v Samuels, 49 NY2d 218, 221; People v Ermo, 47 NY2d 863, 865). This does not, *774however, dispense with the need for a factual record sufficient to permit appellate review (People v Charleston, 54 NY2d 622, 623; People v De Mauro, 48 NY2d 892, 893).…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. People v. BaldiNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
  2. People v. SamuelsNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
  3. People v. BartolomeoNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
  4. People v. ErmoNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
  5. People v. SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1981

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by269 opinions

  1. People v. CallahanNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
  2. People v. NievesNew York Court of Appeals · 2004
  3. People v. AhmedNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
  4. People v. VelasquezNew York Court of Appeals · 2003
  5. People v. WestNew York Court of Appeals · 1993

264 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API