People v. Fenlong

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fenlong

58 A.D.2d 953, 397 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13155

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

DecidedJuly 28, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 58 A.D.2d 953 (People v. Fenlong) 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. Fenlong, 58 A.D.2d 953, 397 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13155 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County, rendered June 18, 1976, convicting the defendant upon a plea of guilty of the crime of assault in the second degree. We have examined the defendant’s contention that he was deprived of adequate representation by counsel and find it completely without merit. We find nothing in this record to support defendant’s argument that he was prevented by his counsel from testifying before the Grand Jury prior to the filing of the indictment, nor that he ever notified the District Attorney of his desire to so testify (CPL 190.50, subd 5, par [b]). As to defendant’s allegation [954]*954that he was refused new counsel, the record discloses that the defendant advised the trial court that he planned to retain counsel of his own choice; that the court acknowledged his right to do so; and that the defendant failed to engage any other counsel but continued to avail himself of the services of counsel previously assigned throughout the entire proceedings. proceedings. Judgment affirmed. Koreman, P. J., Kane, Mahoney, Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County, rendered June 18, 1976, convicting the defendant upon a plea of guilty of the crime of assault in the second degree. We have examined the defendant’s contention that he was deprived of adequate representation by counsel and find it completely without merit. We find nothing in this record to support defendant’s argument that he was prevented by his counsel from testifying before the Grand Jury prior to the filing of the indictment, nor that he ever notified the District Attorney of his desire to so testify (CPL 190.50, subd 5, par [b]). As to defendant’s allegation [954]*954that he was refused new counsel, the record discloses that the defendant advised the trial court that he planned to retain counsel of his own choice; that the court acknowledged his right to do so; and that the defendant failed to engage any other counsel but continued to avail himself of the services of counsel previously assigned throughout the entire proceedings. proceedings. Judgment affirmed. Koreman, P. J., Kane, Mahoney, Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.2d 953, 397 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fenlong-nyappdiv-1977.