People v. Fry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fry

165 A.D.2d 961, 562 N.Y.S.2d 952, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11444

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 27, 1990·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Nicandri, J.), rendered November 15, 1989, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of driving while intoxicated and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree.

Defendant’s principal contention on appeal is that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney did not adequately explore and present his claimed defense that he was not driving the vehicle when it was stopped. However, defendant’s criticism that this defense was not explored more vigorously by calling more witnesses is "nothing more than an attack on the trial strategy employed and does not substantiate a denial of meaningful representation” (People v Szarka, 163 AD2d 758). Defendant’s remaining arguments are also without merit (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495; People v Miller, 163 AD2d 627, 629).

Judgment affirmed.

Kane, J. P., Weiss, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, 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 (Nicandri, J.), rendered November 15, 1989, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of driving while intoxicated and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree.

Defendant’s principal contention on appeal is that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney did not adequately explore and present his claimed defense that he was not driving the vehicle when it was stopped. However, defendant’s criticism that this defense was not explored more vigorously by calling more witnesses is "nothing more than an attack on the trial strategy employed and does not substantiate a denial of meaningful representation” (People v Szarka, 163 AD2d 758). Defendant’s remaining arguments are also without merit (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495; People v Miller, 163 AD2d 627, 629).

Judgment affirmed.

Kane, J. P., Weiss, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.

People v. Fry, 165 A.D.2d 961, 562 N.Y.S.2d 952, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11444 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

165 A.D.2d 961 (People v. Fry) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related