People v. Grant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Grant

39 A.D.3d 770, 832 N.Y.S.2d 441

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

DecidedApril 17, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.3d 770 (People v. Grant) 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. Grant, 39 A.D.3d 770, 832 N.Y.S.2d 441 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (McKay, J.), rendered July 28, 2003, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the defense counsel’s failure to move to dismiss the indictment on the ground that there was an unreasonable delay in sentencing (see CPL 380.30 [1]; People v Drake, 61 NY2d 359 [1984]) did not deprive him of meaningful representation (see US Const Sixth Amend; NY Const, art I, § 6; Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]; People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143 [2005]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]). Skelos, J.P., Angiolillo, Carni and Balkin, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (McKay, J.), rendered July 28, 2003, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the defense counsel’s failure to move to dismiss the indictment on the ground that there was an unreasonable delay in sentencing (see CPL 380.30 [1]; People v Drake, 61 NY2d 359 [1984]) did not deprive him of meaningful representation (see US Const Sixth Amend; NY Const, art I, § 6; Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]; People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143 [2005]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]). Skelos, J.P., Angiolillo, Carni and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 770, 832 N.Y.S.2d 441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-grant-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack