People v. Godbold

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Godbold

231 A.D.2d 910, 648 N.Y.S.2d 357, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10778

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 231 A.D.2d 910 (People v. Godbold) 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. Godbold, 231 A.D.2d 910, 648 N.Y.S.2d 357, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10778 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that County Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying his request for youthful offender treatment {see, People v Vera, 206 AD2d 494; People v Williams, 204 AD2d 1002, Iv denied 83 NY2d 973). The plea bargain provided for an indeterminate term of incarceration of 31/3 to 10 years, while the maximum term of incarceration authorized for a youthful offender is an indeterminate term of l 1/3 to 4 years {see, CPL 720.20 [1] [a]; Penal Law § 60.02 [2]).

The contention that defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel is without merit. The record demonstrates that, although defense counsel did not timely move for suppression of a statement that defendant made to the police, he provided meaningful representation to defendant (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147; People v Barber, 202 AD2d 978, lv denied 83 NY2d 908; People v Stauffer, 202 AD2d 1041, lv denied 83 NY2d 915). (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Harvey, J.—Assault, 1st Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that County Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying his request for youthful offender treatment {see, People v Vera, 206 AD2d 494; People v Williams, 204 AD2d 1002, Iv denied 83 NY2d 973). The plea bargain provided for an indeterminate term of incarceration of 31/3 to 10 years, while the maximum term of incarceration authorized for a youthful offender is an indeterminate term of l 1/3 to 4 years {see, CPL 720.20 [1] [a]; Penal Law § 60.02 [2]).

The contention that defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel is without merit. The record demonstrates that, although defense counsel did not timely move for suppression of a statement that defendant made to the police, he provided meaningful representation to defendant (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147; People v Barber, 202 AD2d 978, lv denied 83 NY2d 908; People v Stauffer, 202 AD2d 1041, lv denied 83 NY2d 915). (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Harvey, J.—Assault, 1st Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 910, 648 N.Y.S.2d 357, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-godbold-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack