People v. Burgess

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Burgess

270 A.D.2d 158, 706 N.Y.S.2d 316, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3078

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

DecidedMarch 23, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 158 (People v. Burgess) 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. Burgess, 270 A.D.2d 158, 706 N.Y.S.2d 316, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3078 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered June 4, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree, attempted burglary in the third degree and possession of burglar’s tools, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of SVz to 7 years, 2 to 4 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s request for an investigator (see, County Law § 722-c), since defendant’s claim of necessity was speculative (see, People v Barber, 154 AD2d 882, lv denied 75 NY2d 810).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Ellerin, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered June 4, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree, attempted burglary in the third degree and possession of burglar’s tools, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of SVz to 7 years, 2 to 4 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s request for an investigator (see, County Law § 722-c), since defendant’s claim of necessity was speculative (see, People v Barber, 154 AD2d 882, lv denied 75 NY2d 810).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Ellerin, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 158, 706 N.Y.S.2d 316, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3078, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-burgess-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack