People v. Candelario

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Candelario

307 A.D.2d 771, 762 N.Y.S.2d 856, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7935

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

DecidedJuly 3, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 307 A.D.2d 771 (People v. Candelario) 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. Candelario, 307 A.D.2d 771, 762 N.Y.S.2d 856, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7935 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of Ontario County Court (Harvey, J.), entered November 24, 1999, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, burglary in the second degree.

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

Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Defendant received “an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt [772]*772on the apparent effectiveness of counsel,” and thus we conclude that he received meaningful representation (People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]). The bargained-for sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present — Green, J.P., Wisner, Burns, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of Ontario County Court (Harvey, J.), entered November 24, 1999, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, burglary in the second degree.

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

Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Defendant received “an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt [772]*772on the apparent effectiveness of counsel,” and thus we conclude that he received meaningful representation (People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]). The bargained-for sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present — Green, J.P., Wisner, Burns, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

307 A.D.2d 771, 762 N.Y.S.2d 856, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-candelario-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack