People v. Bonds

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bonds

165 A.D.2d 880

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 165 A.D.2d 880 (People v. Bonds) 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. Bonds, 165 A.D.2d 880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), rendered May 3, 1988, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s request, made on the eve of trial, that he be assigned new counsel, as that request was supported only by conclusory assertions that he and his then attorney did not agree as to trial strategies (see, People v Medina, 44 NY2d 199, 208-209).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to' be without merit.

Brown, J. P., Kooper, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), rendered May 3, 1988, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s request, made on the eve of trial, that he be assigned new counsel, as that request was supported only by conclusory assertions that he and his then attorney did not agree as to trial strategies (see, People v Medina, 44 NY2d 199, 208-209).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to' be without merit.

Brown, J. P., Kooper, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 A.D.2d 880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bonds-nyappdiv-1990.