People v. Brathwaite

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Brathwaite

139 A.D.2d 749, 527 N.Y.S.2d 499, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4537

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

DecidedApril 25, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 139 A.D.2d 749 (People v. Brathwaite) 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. Brathwaite, 139 A.D.2d 749, 527 N.Y.S.2d 499, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4537 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.), rendered November 21, 1985, convicting him of bribery in the second degree (five counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his trial attorney did not provide meaningful representation because he chose to pursue [750]*750the defense of factual innocence rather than entrapment. In the face of the prosecution’s formidable evidence against the defendant, neither defense was strong. Counsel’s decision to forego the entrapment defense was a matter of strategy which was reasonable given the evidence, the law and the circumstances of the case. Consequently, the defendant’s trial attorney provided meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137).

We find no merit to the defendant’s contention that his sentence was excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Brown, J. P., Weinstein, Spatt 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, Kings County (Aiello, J.), rendered November 21, 1985, convicting him of bribery in the second degree (five counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his trial attorney did not provide meaningful representation because he chose to pursue [750]*750the defense of factual innocence rather than entrapment. In the face of the prosecution’s formidable evidence against the defendant, neither defense was strong. Counsel’s decision to forego the entrapment defense was a matter of strategy which was reasonable given the evidence, the law and the circumstances of the case. Consequently, the defendant’s trial attorney provided meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137).

We find no merit to the defendant’s contention that his sentence was excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Brown, J. P., Weinstein, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.2d 749, 527 N.Y.S.2d 499, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brathwaite-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack