Roberts v. Scully

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that a violation of CPL § 710.30 does not “reflect a claim of constitutional magnitude”
• finding that “petitioner’s claim of insufficient evidence before the grand jury is not cognizable on habeas review since the indicted charges were heard at a plenary trial by a petit jury, which returned an unassailable guilty verdict”
• reaching same conclusion as Smart that dismissal pursuant to section 440.30(4)(b) does not preclude habeas court from reaching merits of petitioner’s claim
• “Because § 440.30(4) applies, by its own terms, only when a trial court denies a § 440.10 motion ‘[ujpon considering the merits,’ a denial based on § 440.30(4

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).