People v. Hamilton

59 A.D.3d 973, 872 N.Y.S.2d 307
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 6, 2009·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her, upon her plea of guilty, of three counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.25). The contention of defendant that she was denied effective assistance of counsel does not survive her guilty plea because “[t]here is no showing that the plea bargaining process was infected by [the] allegedly ineffective assistance or that defendant entered the plea because of [her] attorney[’s] allegedly poor performance” (People v Robinson, 39 AD3d 1266, 1267 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 869 [2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Burke, 256 AD2d 1244 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 851 [1999]). In any event, that contention concerns matters outside the record and thus must be raised by way of a motion pursuant to CPL article 440 (see People v Williams, 48 AD3d 1108, 1109 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 872 [2008]; People v Jackson, 4 AD3d 773 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 801 [2004]). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present— Smith, J.P., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.

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

People v. Hamilton, 59 A.D.3d 973, 872 N.Y.S.2d 307 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

59 A.D.3d 973 (People v. Hamilton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

ATTEA, ANTHONY, PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011
People v. Attea
84 A.D.3d 1700 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)