People v. Jean

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jean

21 A.D.3d 499, 799 N.Y.S.2d 740

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 8, 2005·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D’Emic, J), rendered December 22, 2003, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

“To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, it is incumbent on [the] defendant to demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel’s failure” (People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; see People v Bussey, 6 AD3d 621, 622 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 828 [2005]). “So long as the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of a particular case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation, the constitutional requirement will have been met” (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; see People v Bussey, supra at 622).

The record reveals that the defendant was afforded meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]). Cozier, J.P., S. Miller, Mastro and Rivera, 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 (D’Emic, J), rendered December 22, 2003, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

“To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, it is incumbent on [the] defendant to demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel’s failure” (People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; see People v Bussey, 6 AD3d 621, 622 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 828 [2005]). “So long as the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of a particular case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation, the constitutional requirement will have been met” (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; see People v Bussey, supra at 622).

The record reveals that the defendant was afforded meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]). Cozier, J.P., S. Miller, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.

People v. Jean, 21 A.D.3d 499, 799 N.Y.S.2d 740 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

21 A.D.3d 499 (People v. Jean) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related