People v. Amaker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Amaker

195 A.D.2d 605, 602 N.Y.S.2d 546

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

DecidedJuly 26, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 195 A.D.2d 605 (People v. Amaker) 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. Amaker, 195 A.D.2d 605, 602 N.Y.S.2d 546 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.), rendered October 30, 1989, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant alleges that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. We disagree. Viewing the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case in totality, we find that the defendant was provided with meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147; People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and, in any event, are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Lawrence and Copertino, 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, Kings County (Juviler, J.), rendered October 30, 1989, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant alleges that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. We disagree. Viewing the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case in totality, we find that the defendant was provided with meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147; People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and, in any event, are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Lawrence and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 A.D.2d 605, 602 N.Y.S.2d 546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-amaker-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack