People v. Dalton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dalton

140 A.D.2d 993, 529 N.Y.S.2d 927, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6244

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

DecidedMay 27, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 140 A.D.2d 993 (People v. Dalton) 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. Dalton, 140 A.D.2d 993, 529 N.Y.S.2d 927, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6244 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of attempted burglary in the third degree, possession of burglar’s tools and criminal mischief in the fourth degree.

[994]*994Defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel’s statement prior to trial that he was not prepared on the law or facts relevant to the defense. We disagree. Counsel’s statement, without more, does not establish ineffectiveness. In reviewing a claim of ineffectiveness, a court must view the totality of circumstances of a particular case to determine whether a defendant received "meaningful representation” (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). From our review of the record, defendant was provided meaningful representation (see, e.g., People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796). We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Jefferson County Court, Parker, J. — attempted burglary, third degree, and other charges.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of attempted burglary in the third degree, possession of burglar’s tools and criminal mischief in the fourth degree.

[994]*994Defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel’s statement prior to trial that he was not prepared on the law or facts relevant to the defense. We disagree. Counsel’s statement, without more, does not establish ineffectiveness. In reviewing a claim of ineffectiveness, a court must view the totality of circumstances of a particular case to determine whether a defendant received "meaningful representation” (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). From our review of the record, defendant was provided meaningful representation (see, e.g., People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796). We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Jefferson County Court, Parker, J. — attempted burglary, third degree, and other charges.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.2d 993, 529 N.Y.S.2d 927, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dalton-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack