People v. Cephas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cephas

256 A.D.2d 178, 683 N.Y.S.2d 227, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13746

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

DecidedDecember 17, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 178 (People v. Cephas) 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. Cephas, 256 A.D.2d 178, 683 N.Y.S.2d 227, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13746 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J., at hearing; Paul Bookson, J., at plea and sentence), rendered November 14, 1995, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s guilty plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and defendant received meaningful representation. Although much of the People’s evidence had been suppressed, the People had other evidence upon which to proceed. We therefore reject defendant’s claim that counsel’s failure to move to dismiss the indictment, and his permitting defendant to enter a plea, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant’s plea forecloses review of his other claims (People v Taylor, 65 NY2d 1). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J., at hearing; Paul Bookson, J., at plea and sentence), rendered November 14, 1995, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s guilty plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and defendant received meaningful representation. Although much of the People’s evidence had been suppressed, the People had other evidence upon which to proceed. We therefore reject defendant’s claim that counsel’s failure to move to dismiss the indictment, and his permitting defendant to enter a plea, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant’s plea forecloses review of his other claims (People v Taylor, 65 NY2d 1). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 178, 683 N.Y.S.2d 227, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cephas-nyappdiv-1998.