People v. Baxter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Baxter

190 A.D.2d 1014, 593 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1207

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 190 A.D.2d 1014 (People v. Baxter) 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. Baxter, 190 A.D.2d 1014, 593 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1207 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: At trial, defense counsel informed the court that she had made a mistake in exercising her peremptory challenges when she excused juror number 13 instead of juror number 6. She requested the court to discharge juror number 6 even though that juror had been sworn. On appeal, defendant argues that, because of counsel’s mistake, defendant was deprived of effective assistance of counsel. We disagree. That inadvertent error does not rise to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel (see, People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 798-799).

We have reviewed the issues raised by defendant in his pro [1015]*1015se brief and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J. — Rape, 1st Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Green, Boehm and Davis, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: At trial, defense counsel informed the court that she had made a mistake in exercising her peremptory challenges when she excused juror number 13 instead of juror number 6. She requested the court to discharge juror number 6 even though that juror had been sworn. On appeal, defendant argues that, because of counsel’s mistake, defendant was deprived of effective assistance of counsel. We disagree. That inadvertent error does not rise to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel (see, People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 798-799).

We have reviewed the issues raised by defendant in his pro [1015]*1015se brief and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J. — Rape, 1st Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Green, Boehm and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 A.D.2d 1014, 593 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-baxter-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack