NORWOOD, ANDRE, PEOPLE v

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

NORWOOD, ANDRE, PEOPLE v

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 28, 2017

DocketKA 14-02169

StatusPublished

This text of NORWOOD, ANDRE, PEOPLE v (NORWOOD, ANDRE, PEOPLE v) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

NORWOOD, ANDRE, PEOPLE v, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

448 KA 14-02169 PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANDRE NORWOOD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DAVID R. JUERGENS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (DANIEL GROSS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Daniel J. Doyle, J.), entered October 29, 2014. The order denied the motion of defendant to vacate a judgment of conviction.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order denying his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 (1) (h) seeking to vacate the judgment convicting him following a jury trial of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [2]), based upon the alleged denial of effective assistance of counsel. Specifically, defendant alleged that, when he discussed a plea offer of 15 years to life, defense counsel failed to advise him that the maximum sentence, if convicted after trial, was 25 years to life. Following a hearing, Supreme Court determined that defendant’s self-serving testimony to that effect was not credible and that he therefore failed to meet the requisite burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he was denied effective assistance of counsel (see CPL 440.30 [6]). “The court’s credibility determination is entitled to great weight . . . , and we perceive no basis for reversal on the record before us” (People v Smith, 16 AD3d 1081, 1082, lv denied 4 NY3d 891; see People v Campbell, 106 AD3d 1507, 1508, lv denied 21 NY3d 1002).

Entered: April 28, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

448 KA 14-02169 PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANDRE NORWOOD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DAVID R. JUERGENS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (DANIEL GROSS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Daniel J. Doyle, J.), entered October 29, 2014. The order denied the motion of defendant to vacate a judgment of conviction.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order denying his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 (1) (h) seeking to vacate the judgment convicting him following a jury trial of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [2]), based upon the alleged denial of effective assistance of counsel. Specifically, defendant alleged that, when he discussed a plea offer of 15 years to life, defense counsel failed to advise him that the maximum sentence, if convicted after trial, was 25 years to life. Following a hearing, Supreme Court determined that defendant’s self-serving testimony to that effect was not credible and that he therefore failed to meet the requisite burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he was denied effective assistance of counsel (see CPL 440.30 [6]). “The court’s credibility determination is entitled to great weight . . . , and we perceive no basis for reversal on the record before us” (People v Smith, 16 AD3d 1081, 1082, lv denied 4 NY3d 891; see People v Campbell, 106 AD3d 1507, 1508, lv denied 21 NY3d 1002).

Entered: April 28, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

NORWOOD, ANDRE, PEOPLE v, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norwood-andre-people-v-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack