People v. Clemons

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Clemons

137 A.D.3d 693, 27 N.Y.S.3d 853

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

DecidedMarch 31, 2016

Docket650 2487/13

StatusPublished

This text of 137 A.D.3d 693 (People v. Clemons) 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. Clemons, 137 A.D.3d 693, 27 N.Y.S.3d 853 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy L. Kahn, J.), rendered April 25, 2014, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of three to six years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]). The testimony of the victim, an additional witness, and a police officer provided ample evidence of defendant’s guilt.

Defendant was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel regarding his pro se CPL 330.30 motion to set aside the verdict when newly assigned counsel, who had been substituted for the purpose of avoiding any conflict of interest, advised the court that he was not adopting the motion because, in his judgment, it lacked any valid basis. Defendant was not prejudiced, because the court was not obligated to entertain a motion not adopted by counsel (see People v Rodriguez, 95 NY2d 497, 501-503 [2000]), and because defendant does not assert on appeal *694 that the motion contained any ground that would be a basis for reversal (see People v Malave, 106 AD3d 657 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1044 [2013] [defendant not prejudiced by counsel’s accurate concession that part of pro se motion was meritless]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy L. Kahn, J.), rendered April 25, 2014, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of three to six years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]). The testimony of the victim, an additional witness, and a police officer provided ample evidence of defendant’s guilt.

Defendant was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel regarding his pro se CPL 330.30 motion to set aside the verdict when newly assigned counsel, who had been substituted for the purpose of avoiding any conflict of interest, advised the court that he was not adopting the motion because, in his judgment, it lacked any valid basis. Defendant was not prejudiced, because the court was not obligated to entertain a motion not adopted by counsel (see People v Rodriguez, 95 NY2d 497, 501-503 [2000]), and because defendant does not assert on appeal *694 that the motion contained any ground that would be a basis for reversal (see People v Malave, 106 AD3d 657 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1044 [2013] [defendant not prejudiced by counsel’s accurate concession that part of pro se motion was meritless]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.3d 693, 27 N.Y.S.3d 853, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-clemons-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack