People v. Gioiosa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gioiosa

99 A.D.2d 471, 470 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16648

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

DecidedJanuary 3, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 99 A.D.2d 471 (People v. Gioiosa) 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. Gioiosa, 99 A.D.2d 471, 470 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16648 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jaspan, J.), rendered December 21, 1982, convicting him of criminal possession of marihuana in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence as a second-felony offender. Judgment affirmed. Defendant, while acknowledging his prior Federal conviction of possession with intent to distribute diazepam, contends that the crime did not constitute a felony in this State. Moreover, defendant claims that his Federal conviction was obtained in violation of his right to the effective assistance of counsel. It bears noting that the effectiveness of counsel issue was previously considered and rejected by a Federal Magistrate of the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts. In our view, defendant’s arguments are without merit (see People v Fusillo, Supreme Ct, Suffolk County, May 20, 1982, Jaspan, J., mod on other grounds 94 AD2d 802), and the sentence imposed is proper. Mollen, P. J., Weinstein, Brown and Boyers, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jaspan, J.), rendered December 21, 1982, convicting him of criminal possession of marihuana in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence as a second-felony offender. Judgment affirmed. Defendant, while acknowledging his prior Federal conviction of possession with intent to distribute diazepam, contends that the crime did not constitute a felony in this State. Moreover, defendant claims that his Federal conviction was obtained in violation of his right to the effective assistance of counsel. It bears noting that the effectiveness of counsel issue was previously considered and rejected by a Federal Magistrate of the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts. In our view, defendant’s arguments are without merit (see People v Fusillo, Supreme Ct, Suffolk County, May 20, 1982, Jaspan, J., mod on other grounds 94 AD2d 802), and the sentence imposed is proper. Mollen, P. J., Weinstein, Brown and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.2d 471, 470 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gioiosa-nyappdiv-1984.