People v. Geer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Geer

188 A.D.2d 1014, 592 N.Y.S.2d 995, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14844

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 188 A.D.2d 1014 (People v. Geer) 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. Geer, 188 A.D.2d 1014, 592 N.Y.S.2d 995, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14844 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. From our review of the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case, we conclude that defendant’s attorney provided meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). Defendant further contends that his conviction of unlawful imprisonment in the second degree was barred by the merger doctrine. Because that contention was not raised before County Court, it has not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v McNamara, 186 AD2d 984; People v Salimi, 159 AD2d 658, lv denied 76 NY2d 742), and we decline to reach it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6]).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Wisner, J. — Unlawful Imprisonment, 2nd Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Green, Lawton and Boehm, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. From our review of the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case, we conclude that defendant’s attorney provided meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). Defendant further contends that his conviction of unlawful imprisonment in the second degree was barred by the merger doctrine. Because that contention was not raised before County Court, it has not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v McNamara, 186 AD2d 984; People v Salimi, 159 AD2d 658, lv denied 76 NY2d 742), and we decline to reach it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6]).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Wisner, J. — Unlawful Imprisonment, 2nd Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Green, Lawton and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 1014, 592 N.Y.S.2d 995, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-geer-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack