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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 9, 1989·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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.

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

155 A.D.2d 278 (People v. Amezquita) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related