People v. Hamilton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hamilton

262 A.D.2d 34, 690 N.Y.S.2d 436, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6171

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

DecidedJune 3, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 34 (People v. Hamilton) 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. Hamilton, 262 A.D.2d 34, 690 N.Y.S.2d 436, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6171 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Leibovitz, J.), rendered April 3, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first and third degrees, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 15 years to life and 2A!% to 7 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

[35]*35On the existing record, we find that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708). Defendant has not shown that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s untimely filing of motions for severance of the robbery counts and suppression of physical evidence, because the record suggests that neither motion would have been successful.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Rubin, Andrias 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 (William Leibovitz, J.), rendered April 3, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first and third degrees, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 15 years to life and 2A!% to 7 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

[35]*35On the existing record, we find that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708). Defendant has not shown that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s untimely filing of motions for severance of the robbery counts and suppression of physical evidence, because the record suggests that neither motion would have been successful.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Rubin, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 34, 690 N.Y.S.2d 436, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hamilton-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack