People v. DiPietro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. DiPietro

270 A.D.2d 936, 705 N.Y.S.2d 906, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3398

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

DecidedMarch 29, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 936 (People v. DiPietro) 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. DiPietro, 270 A.D.2d 936, 705 N.Y.S.2d 906, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3398 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the reasonable doubt charge given by County Court was confusing. We disagree. The charge was identical to the pattern jury charge of 1 CJI(NY) 6.20 with the exception of three words, none of which renders the charge confusing. We also reject the contention that defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel. “[T]he evidence, the law, and the circumstances of [this] case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation” (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147; see, People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184, 187). We have reviewed the remaining contentions raised in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Dwyer, J. — Rape, 1st Degree.) Present — Hayes, J. P., Hurlbutt, Scudder and Kehoe, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the reasonable doubt charge given by County Court was confusing. We disagree. The charge was identical to the pattern jury charge of 1 CJI(NY) 6.20 with the exception of three words, none of which renders the charge confusing. We also reject the contention that defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel. “[T]he evidence, the law, and the circumstances of [this] case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation” (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147; see, People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184, 187). We have reviewed the remaining contentions raised in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Dwyer, J. — Rape, 1st Degree.) Present — Hayes, J. P., Hurlbutt, Scudder and Kehoe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 936, 705 N.Y.S.2d 906, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dipietro-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack