People v. Harris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Harris

257 A.D.2d 410, 683 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 39

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

DecidedJanuary 7, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D.2d 410 (People v. Harris) 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. Harris, 257 A.D.2d 410, 683 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 39 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (George Daniels, J.), rendered May 23, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 10 to 20 years and 71Vr2 to 15 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was provided with a reasonable opportunity to testify before the Grand Jury. As the record sufficiently shows, on the first date scheduled for his testimony, he refused to be produced (see, People v Turner, 227 AD2d 120). Although the matter was adjourned and his attorneys did not timely appear on the adjourned date, this did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel warranting dismissal of the indictment (People v Wiggins, 89 NY2d 872).

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Williams and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (George Daniels, J.), rendered May 23, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 10 to 20 years and 71Vr2 to 15 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was provided with a reasonable opportunity to testify before the Grand Jury. As the record sufficiently shows, on the first date scheduled for his testimony, he refused to be produced (see, People v Turner, 227 AD2d 120). Although the matter was adjourned and his attorneys did not timely appear on the adjourned date, this did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel warranting dismissal of the indictment (People v Wiggins, 89 NY2d 872).

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Williams and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D.2d 410, 683 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 39, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-harris-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack