People v. Elahi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Elahi

190 A.D.2d 621, 594 N.Y.S.2d 992, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1715

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 25, 1993·Published

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), entered June 1, 1990, denying [622]*622defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.20 to set aside the sentence of four concurrent terms of 2Vá to 7 years imposed in connection with a judgment rendered July 22, 1988, after a jury trial, convicting defendant of four counts of sodomy in the second degree, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant is barred from seeking a judicial recommendation against deportation (JRAD) because of the retroactive repeal of JRAD legislation, which we have held constitutes neither a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause nor a violation of due process of law (People v Cuello, 188 AD2d 428).

Defendant’s argument that the motion court erred in failing to issue a full opinion denying the sentencing relief sought (erroneously brought under CPL 440.20) is rendered moot by the retroactive repeal of the JRAD legislation (supra). We note that under prevailing standards defendant received effective assistance of counsel at sentencing (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Rosenberger and Asch, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), entered June 1, 1990, denying [622]*622defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.20 to set aside the sentence of four concurrent terms of 2Vá to 7 years imposed in connection with a judgment rendered July 22, 1988, after a jury trial, convicting defendant of four counts of sodomy in the second degree, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant is barred from seeking a judicial recommendation against deportation (JRAD) because of the retroactive repeal of JRAD legislation, which we have held constitutes neither a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause nor a violation of due process of law (People v Cuello, 188 AD2d 428).

Defendant’s argument that the motion court erred in failing to issue a full opinion denying the sentencing relief sought (erroneously brought under CPL 440.20) is rendered moot by the retroactive repeal of the JRAD legislation (supra). We note that under prevailing standards defendant received effective assistance of counsel at sentencing (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Rosenberger and Asch, JJ.

People v. Elahi, 190 A.D.2d 621, 594 N.Y.S.2d 992, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1715 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

190 A.D.2d 621 (People v. Elahi) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related