People v. Coronel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Coronel

64 A.D.3d 419, 881 N.Y.S.2d 293

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

DecidedJuly 2, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 64 A.D.3d 419 (People v. Coronel) 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. Coronel, 64 A.D.3d 419, 881 N.Y.S.2d 293 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael R. Ambrecht, J), rendered April 5, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 1 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not reviewable on direct appeal, since it is based on conversations between defendant and his attorney that are not reflected in the record (see People v Love, 57 NY2d 998 [1982]; People v Santer, 30 AD3d 1129 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 928 [2006]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence, which defendant has completed in any event. To the extent defendant is requesting a reduction of his conviction to a lesser offense, there is no basis upon which to do so (see People v Velasquez, 25 AD3d 501 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 854 [2006]). Concur—Andrias, J.P, Sweeny, McGuire, Acosta and Richter, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael R. Ambrecht, J), rendered April 5, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 1 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not reviewable on direct appeal, since it is based on conversations between defendant and his attorney that are not reflected in the record (see People v Love, 57 NY2d 998 [1982]; People v Santer, 30 AD3d 1129 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 928 [2006]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence, which defendant has completed in any event. To the extent defendant is requesting a reduction of his conviction to a lesser offense, there is no basis upon which to do so (see People v Velasquez, 25 AD3d 501 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 854 [2006]). Concur—Andrias, J.P, Sweeny, McGuire, Acosta and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 A.D.3d 419, 881 N.Y.S.2d 293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-coronel-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack