People v. Jeffrey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jeffrey

216 A.D.2d 133, 628 N.Y.S.2d 639, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6509

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

DecidedJune 20, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 133 (People v. Jeffrey) 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. Jeffrey, 216 A.D.2d 133, 628 N.Y.S.2d 639, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6509 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), rendered August 12, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 41/2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s trial counsel’s performance was not ineffective in any respect (see, People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184; People v [134]*134Rivera, 71 NY2d 705). It would have been foolhardy for trial counsel to pursue the lines of cross-examination now suggested by defendant on appeal. Nor was there anything ineffective about trial counsel’s failure to make various applications and objections suggested by defendant on appeal, which would have had little likelihood of success or impact on the outcome of the trial.

The challenged portions of the People’s summation were fair responses to the defense summation and did not exceed the broad bounds of permissible advocacy. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), rendered August 12, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 41/2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s trial counsel’s performance was not ineffective in any respect (see, People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184; People v [134]*134Rivera, 71 NY2d 705). It would have been foolhardy for trial counsel to pursue the lines of cross-examination now suggested by defendant on appeal. Nor was there anything ineffective about trial counsel’s failure to make various applications and objections suggested by defendant on appeal, which would have had little likelihood of success or impact on the outcome of the trial.

The challenged portions of the People’s summation were fair responses to the defense summation and did not exceed the broad bounds of permissible advocacy. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 133, 628 N.Y.S.2d 639, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jeffrey-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack