People v. Gillespie

97 A.D.3d 763, 947 N.Y.2d 914
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 18, 2012·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

The defendant’s contentions regarding certain comments made by the prosecutor on summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Utley, 45 NY2d 908, 910 [1978]), and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not deprived [764]*764of the effective assistance of counsel. Considering the totality of the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case, trial counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; see also People v Cass, 18 NY3d 553, 564 [2012]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Leventhal and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Gillespie, 97 A.D.3d 763, 947 N.Y.2d 914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

97 A.D.3d 763 (People v. Gillespie) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Gillespie
2018 NY Slip Op 306 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)