People v. Guzit

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Guzit

262 A.D.2d 422, 691 N.Y.S.2d 160, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6294

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

DecidedJune 7, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 422 (People v. Guzit) 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. Guzit, 262 A.D.2d 422, 691 N.Y.S.2d 160, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6294 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), rendered October 17, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The defendant failed to demonstrate “ ‘the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations’ for counsel’s alleged shortcomings” at trial (People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712, quoting People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709; see, People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 799). Moreover, viewing counsel’s conduct in its entirety, the defendant was not deprived of meaningful representation (see, People v Benevento, supra; People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184, 187; People v Finch, 199 AD2d 278).

Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Jefferson, 212 AD2d 546).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Altman and H. Miller, 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 (Vaughan, J.), rendered October 17, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The defendant failed to demonstrate “ ‘the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations’ for counsel’s alleged shortcomings” at trial (People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712, quoting People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709; see, People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 799). Moreover, viewing counsel’s conduct in its entirety, the defendant was not deprived of meaningful representation (see, People v Benevento, supra; People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184, 187; People v Finch, 199 AD2d 278).

Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Jefferson, 212 AD2d 546).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Altman and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 422, 691 N.Y.S.2d 160, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-guzit-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack