People v. Glover

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Glover

181 A.D.2d 630, 582 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5192

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 181 A.D.2d 630 (People v. Glover) 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. Glover, 181 A.D.2d 630, 582 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5192 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), rendered June 23, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of imprisonment of 7 to 14 years, unanimously affirmed.

Having failed to seek postjudgment relief, defendant’s appellate challenge to the effectiveness of trial representation is unreviewable on the present record (People v Jones, 55 NY2d 771, 773). Defendant’s appellate argument fails to demonstrate that there was no reasonable explanation for counsel’s decisions, or that counsel’s representation, on its face, lacked strategic value (People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709). On the [631]*631present state of the record, we cannot conclude that defendant was denied meaningful representation (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger and Kassal, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), rendered June 23, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of imprisonment of 7 to 14 years, unanimously affirmed.

Having failed to seek postjudgment relief, defendant’s appellate challenge to the effectiveness of trial representation is unreviewable on the present record (People v Jones, 55 NY2d 771, 773). Defendant’s appellate argument fails to demonstrate that there was no reasonable explanation for counsel’s decisions, or that counsel’s representation, on its face, lacked strategic value (People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709). On the [631]*631present state of the record, we cannot conclude that defendant was denied meaningful representation (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D.2d 630, 582 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-glover-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack