People v. Crump

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Crump

245 A.D.2d 1124, 666 N.Y.S.2d 98, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13947

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D.2d 1124 (People v. Crump) 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. Crump, 245 A.D.2d 1124, 666 N.Y.S.2d 98, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13947 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal does not foreclose review of the contention that defendant was denied effective representation of counsel (see, People v Polanco [appeal No. 1], 216 AD2d 957, lv denied 86 NY2d 800; People v Ferguson, 192 AD2d 800, lv denied 82 NY2d 717). We conclude, however, that the contention lacks merit. Defense counsel made appropriate pretrial motions, successfully moved for suppression of defendant’s first statement to the police and secured a sentencing commitment for less than the maximum sentence (see, People v Hough, 186 AD2d 1056, 1057, lv denied 81 NY2d 762). Defendant’s disagreement with counsel’s decisions with respect to the presentation of evidence or cross-examination of witnesses at the Huntley hearing is insufficient to establish ineffective assistance of counsel (see, People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184, 187). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J.—Rape, 1st Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Pine, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal does not foreclose review of the contention that defendant was denied effective representation of counsel (see, People v Polanco [appeal No. 1], 216 AD2d 957, lv denied 86 NY2d 800; People v Ferguson, 192 AD2d 800, lv denied 82 NY2d 717). We conclude, however, that the contention lacks merit. Defense counsel made appropriate pretrial motions, successfully moved for suppression of defendant’s first statement to the police and secured a sentencing commitment for less than the maximum sentence (see, People v Hough, 186 AD2d 1056, 1057, lv denied 81 NY2d 762). Defendant’s disagreement with counsel’s decisions with respect to the presentation of evidence or cross-examination of witnesses at the Huntley hearing is insufficient to establish ineffective assistance of counsel (see, People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184, 187). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J.—Rape, 1st Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Pine, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 1124, 666 N.Y.S.2d 98, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-crump-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack