People v. Duncan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Duncan

205 A.D.2d 398, 613 N.Y.S.2d 614, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6352

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

DecidedJune 21, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 205 A.D.2d 398 (People v. Duncan) 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. Duncan, 205 A.D.2d 398, 613 N.Y.S.2d 614, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6352 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Failla, J.), rendered July 29, 1991, which convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree, and sentenced him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 9 to 18 years, unanimously affirmed.

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court made sufficient inquiry prior to denying his motion for new counsel. As a result, the trial court acquired a "clear picture” of the defendant’s complaints (People v Smith, 192 AD2d 310, 312, affd 82 NY2d 731). Accordingly, it cannot be said that the court, which "was in the best position to determine the genuineness of the defendant’s objection to his counsel,” abused its discretion in denying the motion (supra, at 312).

Furthermore, in light of the vicious nature of the crime and the seriousness of the victim’s injuries, a reduction of defendant’s sentence in the interest of justice is not warranted. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Failla, J.), rendered July 29, 1991, which convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree, and sentenced him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 9 to 18 years, unanimously affirmed.

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court made sufficient inquiry prior to denying his motion for new counsel. As a result, the trial court acquired a "clear picture” of the defendant’s complaints (People v Smith, 192 AD2d 310, 312, affd 82 NY2d 731). Accordingly, it cannot be said that the court, which "was in the best position to determine the genuineness of the defendant’s objection to his counsel,” abused its discretion in denying the motion (supra, at 312).

Furthermore, in light of the vicious nature of the crime and the seriousness of the victim’s injuries, a reduction of defendant’s sentence in the interest of justice is not warranted. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 398, 613 N.Y.S.2d 614, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-duncan-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack