The opinion identifies the parties as the People of the State of New York and defendant-appellant Thomas McFadden. It states only that a motion for a writ of error coram nobis was before the Appellate Division, Fourth Department. The opinion provides no underlying criminal facts, no factual background, and no description of the grounds asserted in support of the motion.
Issue
Whether the defendant-appellant's motion for a writ of error coram nobis should be granted.
Rule
This opinion does not state any black-letter rule or doctrinal test. It resolves only that the motion for a writ of error coram nobis is denied.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Buffalo, Darren Cole files a motion in an intermediate appellate court seeking a writ of error coram nobis to revisit a years-old criminal appeal. The court issues a one-sentence order stating only that the motion is denied.
Which proposition is most clearly supported by that order alone?
Explanation. The majority opinion provides only the disposition: the motion for writ of error coram nobis is denied. It does not articulate a legal standard, identify the ground asserted, or supply reasoning. (Derived from People v. McFadden (n.d.).)