People v. Houston

158 A.D.2d 971, 551 N.Y.S.2d 122, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1504
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 2, 1990·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Moreover, counsel’s failure to make a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence cannot be said to have deprived defendant of the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137; People v White, supra, at 860). Defendant failed to demonstrate "the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel’s failure to request a particular hearing” (People v Rivera, supra, at 709).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se brief, and find them to be lacking in merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J. — criminal possession of controlled [972]*972substance, third degree.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

People v. Houston, 158 A.D.2d 971, 551 N.Y.S.2d 122, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1504 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

158 A.D.2d 971 (People v. Houston) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Ruscito
206 A.D.2d 841 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Pillo
168 A.D.2d 899 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)