People v. Dozier

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dozier

44 A.D.3d 403, 843 N.Y.S.2d 502

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

DecidedOctober 11, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 44 A.D.3d 403 (People v. Dozier) 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. Dozier, 44 A.D.3d 403, 843 N.Y.S.2d 502 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J., on dismissal motions; Arlene R. Silverman, J., at pleas and sentence), rendered May 10, 2005, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of five years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

There is no merit to defendant’s claim that he was “denied the right to the assistance of counsel” with respect to the grand jury proceedings leading to his weapon possession indictment, and his alleged desire to testify with respect to that charge (see People v Wiggins, 89 NY2d 872, 873 [1996]). Defendant’s claims relating to his drug indictment are likewise without merit. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Williams, Buckley and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J., on dismissal motions; Arlene R. Silverman, J., at pleas and sentence), rendered May 10, 2005, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of five years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

There is no merit to defendant’s claim that he was “denied the right to the assistance of counsel” with respect to the grand jury proceedings leading to his weapon possession indictment, and his alleged desire to testify with respect to that charge (see People v Wiggins, 89 NY2d 872, 873 [1996]). Defendant’s claims relating to his drug indictment are likewise without merit. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Williams, Buckley and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.3d 403, 843 N.Y.S.2d 502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dozier-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack