People v. Gatewood

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gatewood

124 A.D.3d 910, 998 N.Y.S.2d 914

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

DecidedJanuary 28, 2015

Docket2010-00694

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 124 A.D.3d 910 (People v. Gatewood) 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. Gatewood, 124 A.D.3d 910, 998 N.Y.S.2d 914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), rendered January 5, 2010, convicting him of assault in the third degree and leaving the scene of an incident without reporting, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the grand jury proceeding did not fail to conform to the requirements of CPL article 190 to such a degree that the integrity thereof was impaired (see People v McCormick, 117 AD3d 754, 754-755 [2014]). To the extent that the defendant contends that the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally insufficient, there is no appellate review of this issue as the defendant’s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial (see CPL 210.30 [6]; People v Birot, 99 AD3d 933, 934 [2012]; People v Bajana, 82 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2011]).

Moreover, the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, as defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v West, 105 AD3d 781 [2013]; People v Prescott, 63 AD3d 1090 *911 [2009]; People v Velez, 197 AD2d 651, 652 [1993]).

Leventhal, J.P., Hall, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), rendered January 5, 2010, convicting him of assault in the third degree and leaving the scene of an incident without reporting, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the grand jury proceeding did not fail to conform to the requirements of CPL article 190 to such a degree that the integrity thereof was impaired (see People v McCormick, 117 AD3d 754, 754-755 [2014]). To the extent that the defendant contends that the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally insufficient, there is no appellate review of this issue as the defendant’s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial (see CPL 210.30 [6]; People v Birot, 99 AD3d 933, 934 [2012]; People v Bajana, 82 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2011]).

Moreover, the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, as defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v West, 105 AD3d 781 [2013]; People v Prescott, 63 AD3d 1090 *911 [2009]; People v Velez, 197 AD2d 651, 652 [1993]).

Leventhal, J.P., Hall, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.3d 910, 998 N.Y.S.2d 914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gatewood-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack