People v. Becoats

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Becoats

62 A.D.3d 1257, 877 N.Y.S.2d 725

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

DecidedMay 1, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 62 A.D.3d 1257 (People v. Becoats) 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. Becoats, 62 A.D.3d 1257, 877 N.Y.S.2d 725 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Donald J. Mark, J.), rendered May 23, 2002. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]), defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. We reject that contention (see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Defendant has failed “ ‘to demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations’ for [defense] counsel’s alleged shortcomings” (People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]). Present—Martoche, J.P., Smith, Centra, Fahey and Pine, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Donald J. Mark, J.), rendered May 23, 2002. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]), defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. We reject that contention (see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Defendant has failed “ ‘to demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations’ for [defense] counsel’s alleged shortcomings” (People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]). Present—Martoche, J.P., Smith, Centra, Fahey and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 A.D.3d 1257, 877 N.Y.S.2d 725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-becoats-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack