People v. Atkinson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Atkinson

116 A.D.2d 584, 497 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51436

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 116 A.D.2d 584 (People v. Atkinson) 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. Atkinson, 116 A.D.2d 584, 497 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51436 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Copertino, J.), rendered September 26, 1983, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The trial court properly refused defendant’s request to [585]*585charge the jury on the earnest resistance definition of forcible compulsion (Penal Law § 130.00 [8]). The act of sodomy for which defendant was convicted did not occur prior to the July 1982 amendment of the statute defining forcible compulsion (see, People v Argibay, 45 NY2d 45, cert denied sub nom. Hahn-DiGuiseppe v New York, 439 US 930). The totality of the circumstances of this case reveals that defendant did receive meaningful representation and was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Hooper, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Copertino, J.), rendered September 26, 1983, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The trial court properly refused defendant’s request to [585]*585charge the jury on the earnest resistance definition of forcible compulsion (Penal Law § 130.00 [8]). The act of sodomy for which defendant was convicted did not occur prior to the July 1982 amendment of the statute defining forcible compulsion (see, People v Argibay, 45 NY2d 45, cert denied sub nom. Hahn-DiGuiseppe v New York, 439 US 930). The totality of the circumstances of this case reveals that defendant did receive meaningful representation and was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Hooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.2d 584, 497 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-atkinson-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack