People v Brooks
Annotate this Case
People v Brooks
2013 NY Slip Op 06246
Released on September 27, 2013
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Released on September 27, 2013
MOTION NOS. (48/12 and 53/12) KA 08-00031.
[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
v
JASON J. BROOKS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 1.) KA 08-00032. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, JASON J. BROOKS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Motion for writ of error coram nobis granted. Memorandum: Defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel because counsel failed to raise an issue on direct appeal that would have resulted in reversal, specifically, defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to provide conflict-free representation. Upon our review of the motion papers, we conclude that the issue may have merit. Therefore, the orders of January 31, 2012 are vacated and this Court will consider the appeals de novo (see People v LeFrois, 151 AD2d 1046). Defendant is directed to file and serve his records and briefs with this Court on or before January 9, 2014.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ. (Filed Sept. 27, 2013.)
Released on September 27, 2013
MOTION NOS. (48/12 and 53/12) KA 08-00031.
[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
v
JASON J. BROOKS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 1.) KA 08-00032. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, JASON J. BROOKS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Motion for writ of error coram nobis granted. Memorandum: Defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel because counsel failed to raise an issue on direct appeal that would have resulted in reversal, specifically, defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to provide conflict-free representation. Upon our review of the motion papers, we conclude that the issue may have merit. Therefore, the orders of January 31, 2012 are vacated and this Court will consider the appeals de novo (see People v LeFrois, 151 AD2d 1046). Defendant is directed to file and serve his records and briefs with this Court on or before January 9, 2014.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ. (Filed Sept. 27, 2013.)
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
