People v. Chivis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Chivis

202 A.D.2d 164, 608 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1746

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

DecidedMarch 1, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 202 A.D.2d 164 (People v. Chivis) 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. Chivis, 202 A.D.2d 164, 608 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1746 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Andrias, J.), rendered September 18, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of auto stripping in the first degree, and sentencing him to a prison term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint new counsel (see, People v Smith, 192 AD2d 310, 312, affd 82 NY2d 731). The record indicates that there was a sufficient basis to conclude that defendant’s application was frivolous (see, People v Leach, 169 AD2d 569, lv denied 77 NY2d 962). Defendant’s contention that counsel was unfamiliar with the case was belied by counsel’s detailed cross-examination of an arresting police officer on the previous day. As for defendant’s claim that counsel had not informed him of "what I am facing”, the trial court itself noted that counsel had done so on numerous occasions in the court’s presence, and counsel indicated that he had discussed the pending plea bargain offer with defendant. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Wallach and Tom, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Andrias, J.), rendered September 18, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of auto stripping in the first degree, and sentencing him to a prison term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint new counsel (see, People v Smith, 192 AD2d 310, 312, affd 82 NY2d 731). The record indicates that there was a sufficient basis to conclude that defendant’s application was frivolous (see, People v Leach, 169 AD2d 569, lv denied 77 NY2d 962). Defendant’s contention that counsel was unfamiliar with the case was belied by counsel’s detailed cross-examination of an arresting police officer on the previous day. As for defendant’s claim that counsel had not informed him of "what I am facing”, the trial court itself noted that counsel had done so on numerous occasions in the court’s presence, and counsel indicated that he had discussed the pending plea bargain offer with defendant. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Wallach and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 164, 608 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-chivis-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack