People v. Lebrón

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lebrón

114 A.D.2d 859, 494 N.Y.S.2d 766, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53877

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

DecidedNovember 4, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 114 A.D.2d 859 (People v. Lebrón) 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. Lebrón, 114 A.D.2d 859, 494 N.Y.S.2d 766, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53877 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), rendered January 12, 1983, convicting him of [860]*860murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The prosecutor’s statements during summation did not deprive defendant of a fair trial since the statements defendant complains of were valid inferences drawn from the evidence adduced at trial (see, People v Bailey, 58 NY2d 272, 277). Assuming, arguendo, that any of the statements went beyond the bounds of propriety, any possible prejudice which might have resulted from the prosecutor’s statements was dissipated by the court’s instructions to the jury not to speculate and not to consider counsel’s statements as evidence (see, People v McCloskey, 92 AD2d 672).

Furthermore, defendant has failed to demonstrate a deprivation of his right to the effective assistance of counsel under either the "meaningful representation” test applied in People v Baldi (54 NY2d 137, 147), or the two-pronged test articulated in Strickland v Washington (466 US 668). Niehoff, J. P., Lawrence, Fiber and Hooper, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), rendered January 12, 1983, convicting him of [860]*860murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The prosecutor’s statements during summation did not deprive defendant of a fair trial since the statements defendant complains of were valid inferences drawn from the evidence adduced at trial (see, People v Bailey, 58 NY2d 272, 277). Assuming, arguendo, that any of the statements went beyond the bounds of propriety, any possible prejudice which might have resulted from the prosecutor’s statements was dissipated by the court’s instructions to the jury not to speculate and not to consider counsel’s statements as evidence (see, People v McCloskey, 92 AD2d 672).

Furthermore, defendant has failed to demonstrate a deprivation of his right to the effective assistance of counsel under either the "meaningful representation” test applied in People v Baldi (54 NY2d 137, 147), or the two-pronged test articulated in Strickland v Washington (466 US 668). Niehoff, J. P., Lawrence, Fiber and Hooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.2d 859, 494 N.Y.S.2d 766, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lebron-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack