People v. Dickeson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dickeson

84 A.D.3d 1743, 922 N.Y.S.2d 833

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

DecidedMay 6, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 84 A.D.3d 1743 (People v. Dickeson) 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. Dickeson, 84 A.D.3d 1743, 922 N.Y.S.2d 833 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (William F. Kocher, J.), rendered October 29, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of driving while intoxicated, a class E felony (two counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, following a jury trial, of two counts of driving while intoxicated as a felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2], [3]; § 1193 [1] [c] [former (i)]), defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. We reject that contention. Viewing the evidence, the law and the circumstances of this case in totality and as of the time of the representation, we conclude that defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Defendant failed to demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for defense counsel’s alleged shortcomings (see People v Marcial, 41 AD3d 1308 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 878 [2007]). Present — Smith, J.E, Peradotto, Lindley, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (William F. Kocher, J.), rendered October 29, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of driving while intoxicated, a class E felony (two counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, following a jury trial, of two counts of driving while intoxicated as a felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2], [3]; § 1193 [1] [c] [former (i)]), defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. We reject that contention. Viewing the evidence, the law and the circumstances of this case in totality and as of the time of the representation, we conclude that defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Defendant failed to demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for defense counsel’s alleged shortcomings (see People v Marcial, 41 AD3d 1308 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 878 [2007]). Present — Smith, J.E, Peradotto, Lindley, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 A.D.3d 1743, 922 N.Y.S.2d 833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dickeson-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack