People v. Lebron

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lebron

77 A.D.3d 440, 908 N.Y.S.2d 575

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

DecidedOctober 12, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 77 A.D.3d 440 (People v. Lebron) 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. Lebron, 77 A.D.3d 440, 908 N.Y.S.2d 575 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Kibbie F. Payne, J.), rendered April 16, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenge to the court’s response to a juror’s note is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the court provided a meaningful response that was nearly identical to the one requested by defense counsel. Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is unreviewable on direct appeal because it involves matters outside the record concerning counsel’s strategy in requesting the response at issue (see People v Love, 57 NY2d 998 [1982]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Acosta and Román, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Kibbie F. Payne, J.), rendered April 16, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenge to the court’s response to a juror’s note is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the court provided a meaningful response that was nearly identical to the one requested by defense counsel. Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is unreviewable on direct appeal because it involves matters outside the record concerning counsel’s strategy in requesting the response at issue (see People v Love, 57 NY2d 998 [1982]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Acosta and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A.D.3d 440, 908 N.Y.S.2d 575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lebron-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack