People v. Barlow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Barlow

222 A.D.2d 1123, 635 N.Y.S.2d 905, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14321

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

DecidedDecember 22, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 1123 (People v. Barlow) 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. Barlow, 222 A.D.2d 1123, 635 N.Y.S.2d 905, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14321 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the argument of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel by counsel’s failure to move for a Wade hearing to explore the possible suggestive nature of a showup identification procedure that occurred prior to the preliminary hearing. The victim had an independent basis for his identification of defendant; thus, the failure of counsel to move for a Wade hearing did not "seriously compromise! ] * * * defendant’s right to a fair trial” (People v Hobot, 84 NY2d 1021, 1022).

The record on appeal is insufficient for us to review the contention of defendant, made in his pro se supplemental brief, that the court improperly denied his pro se motion for reassignment of counsel. Because the record is silent on that issue, it should be raised in a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10.

The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe, and we decline to exercise our power to modify the sentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [b]). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolfgang, J. — Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the argument of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel by counsel’s failure to move for a Wade hearing to explore the possible suggestive nature of a showup identification procedure that occurred prior to the preliminary hearing. The victim had an independent basis for his identification of defendant; thus, the failure of counsel to move for a Wade hearing did not "seriously compromise! ] * * * defendant’s right to a fair trial” (People v Hobot, 84 NY2d 1021, 1022).

The record on appeal is insufficient for us to review the contention of defendant, made in his pro se supplemental brief, that the court improperly denied his pro se motion for reassignment of counsel. Because the record is silent on that issue, it should be raised in a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10.

The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe, and we decline to exercise our power to modify the sentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [b]). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolfgang, J. — Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 1123, 635 N.Y.S.2d 905, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-barlow-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack