People v. Haynes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Haynes

32 A.D.3d 400, 820 N.Y.S.2d 299

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

DecidedAugust 1, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 32 A.D.3d 400 (People v. Haynes) 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. Haynes, 32 A.D.3d 400, 820 N.Y.S.2d 299 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered May 6, 2003, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. Viewing the record as a whole, the defendant received meaningful representation (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]).

Further, the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress certain physical evidence for the reasons stated on the codefendant’s appeal (see People v Haynes, 16 AD3d 434 [2005]). Florio, J.P., Crane, Ritter and Fisher, 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 (Dowling, J.), rendered May 6, 2003, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. Viewing the record as a whole, the defendant received meaningful representation (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]).

Further, the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress certain physical evidence for the reasons stated on the codefendant’s appeal (see People v Haynes, 16 AD3d 434 [2005]). Florio, J.P., Crane, Ritter and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.3d 400, 820 N.Y.S.2d 299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-haynes-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack