People v. Figueroa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Figueroa

169 A.D.2d 982, 565 N.Y.S.2d 745, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 817

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 169 A.D.2d 982 (People v. Figueroa) 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. Figueroa, 169 A.D.2d 982, 565 N.Y.S.2d 745, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 817 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (Feinberg, J.), rendered December 15, 1987, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and promoting prison contraband in the first degree.

Defendant’s assertion of inadequate legal representation is predicated on the fact that his attorney failed to properly prepare for the trial, elicited prejudicial testimony and made prejudicial remarks during summation. Viewing trial counsel’s performance "in its entirety, in conjunction with the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case” (People v Vanterpool, 143 AD2d 282, lv denied 73 NY2d 860), we cannot say that defense counsel failed to meet the standards enunciated in People v Baldi (54 NY2d 137). Since the prosecution was accommodating in providing defense counsel with the information she requested, there was no reason to make any pretrial discovery motions. In addition, taking the summation as a whole, we find no prejudice to defendant. The resolution of this issue obviates the need to address defendant’s remaining claim that County Court erred in failing to grant either his motion to adjourn or his posttrial motion to set aside the verdict, both of which were predicated on the same claim.

Judgment affirmed. Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Mercure, 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 Clinton County (Feinberg, J.), rendered December 15, 1987, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and promoting prison contraband in the first degree.

Defendant’s assertion of inadequate legal representation is predicated on the fact that his attorney failed to properly prepare for the trial, elicited prejudicial testimony and made prejudicial remarks during summation. Viewing trial counsel’s performance "in its entirety, in conjunction with the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case” (People v Vanterpool, 143 AD2d 282, lv denied 73 NY2d 860), we cannot say that defense counsel failed to meet the standards enunciated in People v Baldi (54 NY2d 137). Since the prosecution was accommodating in providing defense counsel with the information she requested, there was no reason to make any pretrial discovery motions. In addition, taking the summation as a whole, we find no prejudice to defendant. The resolution of this issue obviates the need to address defendant’s remaining claim that County Court erred in failing to grant either his motion to adjourn or his posttrial motion to set aside the verdict, both of which were predicated on the same claim.

Judgment affirmed. Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 A.D.2d 982, 565 N.Y.S.2d 745, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-figueroa-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack