People v. Chapman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Chapman

182 A.D.2d 1130, 586 N.Y.S.2d 773, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7026

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

DecidedApril 24, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 182 A.D.2d 1130 (People v. Chapman) 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. Chapman, 182 A.D.2d 1130, 586 N.Y.S.2d 773, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7026 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Defendant bore the burden of showing that, in light of the evidence, the law and the circumstances of his case, viewed in their totality, his representation was not meaningful (see, People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 708-709; see also, People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 798-799; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147). Defendant did not meet that burden. The record on the whole shows that defendant’s representation was meaningful.

[1131]*1131We have examined defendant’s other contention and find it to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Cayuga County Court, Corning, J. — Rape, 1st Degree.) Present— Green, J. P., Pine, Balio, Boehm and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Defendant bore the burden of showing that, in light of the evidence, the law and the circumstances of his case, viewed in their totality, his representation was not meaningful (see, People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 708-709; see also, People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 798-799; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147). Defendant did not meet that burden. The record on the whole shows that defendant’s representation was meaningful.

[1131]*1131We have examined defendant’s other contention and find it to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Cayuga County Court, Corning, J. — Rape, 1st Degree.) Present— Green, J. P., Pine, Balio, Boehm and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 A.D.2d 1130, 586 N.Y.S.2d 773, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7026, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-chapman-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack