The Law Lion Logo - AI-powered legal writing assistantThe Law Lion
Home
Features
Pricing
Services
AboutBlogCasesContact
Login
Ask Law Lion AI
  1. Home
  2. >Cases
  3. >The People of the State of New York v. Gilbert Sanchez
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

The People of the State of New York v. Gilbert Sanchez

3 citations

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • —Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Elbert Hinkson, J.), entered on or about...

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • —Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Elbert Hinkson, J.), entered on or about...

No summary available for this case.

Opinions

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Elbert Hinkson, J.), entered on or about January 31, 1991, which denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment rendered June 24, 1985, convicting him, after a jury trial, of rape in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 11 to 22 years, unanimously affirmed.

The motion court correctly determined that there were *488sufficient facts in the record for defendant to have raised on appeal all of the issues now raised in his CPL 440.10 motion (CPL 440.10 [2] [c]; see, People v Saldana, 161 AD2d 441, 442, lv denied 76 NY2d 944). Indeed, defendant cites to the trial transcript in support of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Contrary to defendant’s claim, the record reveals that defendant did receive the effective assistance of counsel. Defendant’s claim of a Brady violation (Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83) is without merit because the item which defendant contends had not been produced was admitted into evidence after inspection and without objection by defense counsel.

Defendant’s argument that there occurred a Rosario violation due to the People’s failure to provide two police reports and the 911 tape is without merit. The record, and defendant’s affidavit, unsupported by any other evidence, demonstrate that "there is no reasonable possibility that such allegation is true” (CPL 440.30 [4] [d]). Furthermore, this claim should have been raised during defendant’s first unsuccessful CPL 440.10 motion (CPL 440.10 [3] [c]). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

The Law Lion logoThe Law Lion.

The Law Lion is the only platform combining AI legal writing grounded in real case law with an expert human writing service — serving attorneys, paralegals, and everyday people nationwide.

info@thelawlion.com
Mon–Fri 9am–6pm EST · Rush available
Serving Clients Nationwide

AI Tool

  • → AI Legal Writing Tool
  • → AI Document Drafting
  • → Motion Drafting
  • → Contract Drafting
  • → Legal Research
  • → Case Law Search
  • → Citation Generator
  • → Document Review
  • → Contract Review
  • → For Lawyers

Writing Service

  • → Eviction Defense
  • → Court Documents
  • → Custody & Family
  • → Divorce Documents
  • → Debt & Collections
  • → All Writing Services

Top Guides

  • → Eviction Response Guide
  • → Best AI Legal Tools 2026
  • → Debt Validation Letter Guide

Company

  • → About The Law Lion
  • → Client Results
  • → Transparent Pricing
  • → Legal Guides & Blog
  • → Contact & Free Consult
  • → Affiliate Program

Top Services

  • → Eviction Notice Response
  • → Debt Validation Letter
  • → Court Summons Response
© 2026 The Law Lion LLC · AI Legal Writing & Expert Document Service
Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceSitemap