People v. Amezquita

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Amezquita

155 A.D.2d 278, 547 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13833

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

DecidedNovember 9, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 155 A.D.2d 278 (People v. Amezquita) 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. Amezquita, 155 A.D.2d 278, 547 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13833 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (James Leif, J.), rendered on July 16, 1987, which convicted defendant, after a jury trial, or four counts of second degree robbery and sentenced him to four concurrent prison terms of IV2 to 15 years, is unanimously affirmed.

In this robbery case, the Trial Judge did not abuse his discretion in denying defendant’s requests to change counsel as such requests were based on conclusory and unsubstantiated remarks concerning assigned counsel’s performance (see, People v Tineo, 64 NY2d 531). Furthermore, defense counsel’s failure to make a particular pretrial motion does not, by itself, constitute ineffective assistance of counsel (People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709). Similarly, the court’s imposition of the legal maximum term that defendant could have received for robbery in the second degree did not constitute an abuse of discretion in view of his two prior felony convictions (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Milonas, Rosenberger and Wallach, JJ.

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

— Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (James Leif, J.), rendered on July 16, 1987, which convicted defendant, after a jury trial, or four counts of second degree robbery and sentenced him to four concurrent prison terms of IV2 to 15 years, is unanimously affirmed.

In this robbery case, the Trial Judge did not abuse his discretion in denying defendant’s requests to change counsel as such requests were based on conclusory and unsubstantiated remarks concerning assigned counsel’s performance (see, People v Tineo, 64 NY2d 531). Furthermore, defense counsel’s failure to make a particular pretrial motion does not, by itself, constitute ineffective assistance of counsel (People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709). Similarly, the court’s imposition of the legal maximum term that defendant could have received for robbery in the second degree did not constitute an abuse of discretion in view of his two prior felony convictions (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Milonas, Rosenberger and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 A.D.2d 278, 547 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-amezquita-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack