People v. Graham

169 A.D.2d 512, 564 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 346
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 17, 1991
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 169 A.D.2d 512 (People v. Graham) 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. Graham, 169 A.D.2d 512, 564 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 346 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edwin Torres, J.), rendered May 4, 1988, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of rape in the first degree and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 15 years to life, to run concurrently with a sentence imposed in Kings County under indictments Nos. 4843/86 and 5894/86, unanimously modified, to the extent of vacating the defendant’s adjudication as a persistent violent felony offender and the sentence and remanding for resentencing, and otherwise affirmed.

At sentencing, a. defendant is entitled to be represented by an attorney sufficiently familiar with the case to make an effective presentation. (People v Gonzalez, 43 AD2d 914.) Here, when defendant appeared for sentencing, the attorney who [513]*513had represented him at his plea was not present and, instead, defendant was represented by a different attorney from the same office, who stated that he was "standing in”. During the proceeding, at which he was first adjudicated a persistent violent felony offender and then sentenced in accordance with his plea, defendant repeatedly stated that he wished to have his original attorney present and also stated that he had discussed the case only with that attorney. Defendant denied in general terms that he was a persistent violent felony offender, but neither he nor his attorney specifically denied the existence or validity of the alleged prior convictions.

In light of these statements by defendant, along with the court’s failure to inquire as to the reasons for his first attorney’s absence or the familiarity of the appearing attorney with the case, defendant was deprived of effective assistance of counsel. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Walker
101 A.D.3d 1350 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
BEARD, JAMES, PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
People v. Beard
100 A.D.3d 1508 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Wiggan
242 A.D.2d 549 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
People v. Lopez
197 A.D.2d 594 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
169 A.D.2d 512, 564 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-graham-nyappdiv-1991.