People v. Acosta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Acosta

124 A.D.3d 907, 998 N.Y.S.2d 914

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

DecidedJanuary 28, 2015

Docket2011-07030

StatusPublished

This text of 124 A.D.3d 907 (People v. Acosta) 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

People v. Acosta, 124 A.D.3d 907, 998 N.Y.S.2d 914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kron, J.), rendered July 21, 2011, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts) and endangering the welfare of a child, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is without merit, as he did not demonstrate that there was no strategic or legitimate explanation for the defense attorneys’ allegedly deficient conduct, or that they otherwise failed to provide meaningful representation (see People v Barboni, 21 NY3d 393, 406 [2013]; People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]). Viewed in their totality, the circumstances reveal that the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d at 713-714).

Mastro, J.P., Roman, Sgroi and Barros, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kron, J.), rendered July 21, 2011, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts) and endangering the welfare of a child, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is without merit, as he did not demonstrate that there was no strategic or legitimate explanation for the defense attorneys’ allegedly deficient conduct, or that they otherwise failed to provide meaningful representation (see People v Barboni, 21 NY3d 393, 406 [2013]; People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]). Viewed in their totality, the circumstances reveal that the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d at 713-714).

Mastro, J.P., Roman, Sgroi and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.3d 907, 998 N.Y.S.2d 914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-acosta-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack