People v. Hagood

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hagood

291 A.D.2d 289, 737 N.Y.S.2d 611, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1766

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 291 A.D.2d 289 (People v. Hagood) 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. Hagood, 291 A.D.2d 289, 737 N.Y.S.2d 611, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1766 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J.), rendered July 1, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and also convicting her, upon her plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing her, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years and 4V2 to 9 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant’s ineffective assistance claim primarily involves matters dehors the record, including questions of strategy and consultations between defendant and her counsel, it would require a CPL 440.10 motion in order to expand the record. To the extent the existing record permits review, it establishes that trial counsel provided meaningful representation (see, People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714). We note that it is defendant who is ultimately to blame for giving peijured testimony at trial.

Defendant’s claim that the court inappropriately interfered with the examination of witnesses is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court’s minor clarifying interventions were appropriate (see, People v Moulton, 43 NY2d 944).

We perceive no basis for a reduction of sentence. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J.), rendered July 1, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and also convicting her, upon her plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing her, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years and 4V2 to 9 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant’s ineffective assistance claim primarily involves matters dehors the record, including questions of strategy and consultations between defendant and her counsel, it would require a CPL 440.10 motion in order to expand the record. To the extent the existing record permits review, it establishes that trial counsel provided meaningful representation (see, People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714). We note that it is defendant who is ultimately to blame for giving peijured testimony at trial.

Defendant’s claim that the court inappropriately interfered with the examination of witnesses is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court’s minor clarifying interventions were appropriate (see, People v Moulton, 43 NY2d 944).

We perceive no basis for a reduction of sentence. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 289, 737 N.Y.S.2d 611, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hagood-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack