People v. Lashley

2023 NY Slip Op 01596
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 23, 2023
DocketInd. No. 4895/17 4895/17 Appeal No. 17573 Case No. 2019-03922
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2023 NY Slip Op 01596 (People v. Lashley) 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. Lashley, 2023 NY Slip Op 01596 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

People v Lashley (2023 NY Slip Op 01596)
People v Lashley
2023 NY Slip Op 01596
Decided on March 23, 2023
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered: March 23, 2023
Before: Renwick, J.P., Friedman, Scarpulla, Mendez, Rodriguez, JJ.

Ind. No. 4895/17 4895/17 Appeal No. 17573 Case No. 2019-03922

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Sharon Lashley, Defendant-Appellant.


Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Jan Hoth of counsel), for appellant.

Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Molly Morgan of counsel), for respondent.



Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Steven M. Statsinger, J.), rendered June 6, 2019, as amended December 13, 2019, convicting defendant, upon her plea of guilty plea, of identity theft in the first degree, and sentencing her, as a second felony offender, to a term of two to four years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's claim that her counsel rendered ineffective assistance by submitting a defective speedy trial motion is unreviewable on direct appeal because it generally involves matters not reflected in, or fully explained by, the record (see People v Rivera , 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]). These include counsel's reasons for not challenging two periods of delay, and facts bearing on the excludability of one of these periods. Therefore, because defendant has not made a CPL 440.10 motion, the merits of her claim may not be addressed on appeal. In the alternative we find, to the extent the existing record permits review, that defendant received effective assistance (see People v Benevento , 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; Strickland v Washington , 466 US 668 [1984]). On the present record, defendant has not established that either of the periods at issue should have been charged to the People.THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: March 23, 2023



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

Related

People v. Lashley
2023 NY Slip Op 01596 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2023 NY Slip Op 01596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lashley-nyappdiv-2023.