People v. Campos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Campos

249 A.D.2d 237, 672 N.Y.S.2d 680, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4788

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

DecidedApril 30, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 237 (People v. Campos) 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. Campos, 249 A.D.2d 237, 672 N.Y.S.2d 680, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4788 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, [238]*238Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.), rendered September 12, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and resentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 6 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that a purported conflict of interest between himself and his trial attorney deprived him of effective assistance of counsel is without merit. Since an attorney’s ethical duty to advance the interest of his or her client is circumscribed by an “equally solemn duty” to “prevent and disclose frauds upon the court” (Nix v Whiteside, 475 US 157, 168-169), counsel properly informed the court about defendant’s confidential request to have counsel participate in defendant’s apparent plan to lay a false foundation for a speedy trial application. Counsel’s conduct did not create or evince any actual potential conflict of interest between counsel’s own interests and defendant’s interests (supra; People v Tyler, 245 AD2d 1100) and, in any event, even if such conflict existed, defendant has made no showing that it affected counsel’s conduct of the defense (see, People v Ortiz, 76 NY2d 652, 657). We have reviewed defendant’s remaining arguments in this connection and find them to be without merit.

We perceive no abuse of discretion, and find that the court weighed the proper criteria (see, Penal Law § 70.25 [2-b]), in the court’s imposition of sentence consecutive to a sentence imposed under another weapon possession indictment upon which defendant had been on bail at the time of the instant crime. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, [238]*238Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.), rendered September 12, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and resentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 6 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that a purported conflict of interest between himself and his trial attorney deprived him of effective assistance of counsel is without merit. Since an attorney’s ethical duty to advance the interest of his or her client is circumscribed by an “equally solemn duty” to “prevent and disclose frauds upon the court” (Nix v Whiteside, 475 US 157, 168-169), counsel properly informed the court about defendant’s confidential request to have counsel participate in defendant’s apparent plan to lay a false foundation for a speedy trial application. Counsel’s conduct did not create or evince any actual potential conflict of interest between counsel’s own interests and defendant’s interests (supra; People v Tyler, 245 AD2d 1100) and, in any event, even if such conflict existed, defendant has made no showing that it affected counsel’s conduct of the defense (see, People v Ortiz, 76 NY2d 652, 657). We have reviewed defendant’s remaining arguments in this connection and find them to be without merit.

We perceive no abuse of discretion, and find that the court weighed the proper criteria (see, Penal Law § 70.25 [2-b]), in the court’s imposition of sentence consecutive to a sentence imposed under another weapon possession indictment upon which defendant had been on bail at the time of the instant crime. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 237, 672 N.Y.S.2d 680, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-campos-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack