People v. Fernandez

201 A.D.3d 736, 156 N.Y.S.3d 890, 2022 NY Slip Op 00190
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 12, 2022
DocketInd. No. 1084/18
StatusPublished

This text of 201 A.D.3d 736 (People v. Fernandez) 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. Fernandez, 201 A.D.3d 736, 156 N.Y.S.3d 890, 2022 NY Slip Op 00190 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

People v Fernandez (2022 NY Slip Op 00190)
People v Fernandez
2022 NY Slip Op 00190
Decided on January 12, 2022
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on January 12, 2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P.
SHERI S. ROMAN
LARA J. GENOVESI
DEBORAH A. DOWLING, JJ.

2020-01468
(Ind. No. 1084/18)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Welinton Fernandez, appellant.


Goldberger & Dubin, P.C., New York, NY (Edgar L. Fankbonner of counsel), for appellant.

Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and Rebecca Nealon of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Stephanie Zaro, J.), rendered January 21, 2020, convicting him of criminal sexual act in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted of criminal sexual act in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree based on the complainant's testimony, the testimony of two individuals to whom the complainant promptly reported the incident, and DNA evidence.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was provided with meaningful representation at trial (see People v Benevento , 91 NY2d 708, 713; People v Baldi , 54 NY2d 137). The defendant failed to demonstrate the absence of a strategic or other legitimate explanation for defense counsel's choice of defense theories (see People v Ross , 209 AD2d 730).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte , 90 AD2d 80).

CHAMBERS, J.P., ROMAN, GENOVESI and DOWLING, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Maria T. Fasulo

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

People v. Benevento
697 N.E.2d 584 (New York Court of Appeals, 1998)
People v. Baldi
429 N.E.2d 400 (New York Court of Appeals, 1981)
People v. Suitte
90 A.D.2d 80 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
People v. Ross
209 A.D.2d 730 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
201 A.D.3d 736, 156 N.Y.S.3d 890, 2022 NY Slip Op 00190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fernandez-nyappdiv-2022.