png">
Leagle.com Leagle.com Leagle.com
Sign in
 

PEOPLE v. MORISSEAU

18-0282.

2020 NY Slip Op 50352(U)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff, v. CHARLENE MORISSEAU, Defendant.

City Court of Mount Vernon.

Decided March 16, 2020.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Westchester County District Attorney, Mount Vernon branch.

Charlene Morisseau, Defendant Pro Se.


Defendant is charged by superseding misdemeanor information with Criminal Contempt in the Second Degree (P.L. 215.50). Defendant, pro se, moves for "reconsideration" of the speedy trial motion rendered on August 9, 2019 and issuance of subpoenas upon the Westchester County Department of Safety.

The People oppose the motion...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases

    BARNES v. STATE | 229 S.W.2d 484 (1950) | sw2d4841698 | Leagle.com
     

    BARNES v. STATE

    No. 4604.

    229 S.W.2d 484 (1950)

    BARNES et al. v. STATE.

    Supreme Court of Arkansas.

    Rehearing Denied May 29, 1950.


    Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

    Claude F. Cooper and Oscar Fendler, Blytheville, for appellants.

    Ike Murry, Atty. Gen, Robert Downie, Asst. Atty. Gen, for appellee.


    DUNAWAY, Justice.

    Appellants, Barnes and York, were convicted of the crime of grand larceny and their punishment was assessed at five years imprisonment in the State Penitentiary. This is the second appeal in this case. On the first appeal, Barnes and York v. State, Ark., 223 S.W.2d 503, a similar judgment was reversed because of the introduction of prejudicial hearsay testimony, and the cause was remanded for a new trial.

    These facts were established by the...

    Let's get started

    Leagle.com

    Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
    Sign on now to see your case.
    Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

    • Updated daily.
    • Uncompromising quality.
    • Complete, Accurate, Current.

    Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

    Cited Cases

    • No Cases Found

    Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

    Citing Cases