People v. De Rosa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. De Rosa

118 A.D.2d 721, 500 N.Y.S.2d 54, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54581

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 118 A.D.2d 721 (People v. De Rosa) 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. De Rosa, 118 A.D.2d 721, 500 N.Y.S.2d 54, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54581 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant (by permission) from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), dated February 15, 1985, which denied his motion for an order pursuant to CPL article 440 granting a plenary hearing and/or summarily vacating a judgment of [722]*722the same court, rendered January 27, 1983, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Order affirmed.

The court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment of conviction (see, CPL 440.10 [3] [a]). We find that the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. The record as a whole indicates that counsel was adequately prepared, knowledgeable about the law and vigorous in his defense of the defendant. Any errors committed by counsel were not so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796). Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by the defendant (by permission) from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), dated February 15, 1985, which denied his motion for an order pursuant to CPL article 440 granting a plenary hearing and/or summarily vacating a judgment of [722]*722the same court, rendered January 27, 1983, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Order affirmed.

The court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment of conviction (see, CPL 440.10 [3] [a]). We find that the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. The record as a whole indicates that counsel was adequately prepared, knowledgeable about the law and vigorous in his defense of the defendant. Any errors committed by counsel were not so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796). Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.2d 721, 500 N.Y.S.2d 54, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-de-rosa-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack