People v. Louissant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Louissant

8 A.D.3d 407, 777 N.Y.S.2d 764, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7767

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

DecidedJune 7, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.3d 407 (People v. Louissant) 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. Louissant, 8 A.D.3d 407, 777 N.Y.S.2d 764, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7767 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rios, J), rendered August 3, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, attempted robbery in the second degree (two counts), assault in the second degree, and assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he received the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563 [2000]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; cf. People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277 [2004]). The defendant failed to demonstrate that there were no strategic or other legitimate explanations for his attorney’s alleged shortcomings, and failed to overcome the presumption that “counsel acted in a competent manner and exercised professional judgment” in declining to make certain objections and requests (People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; see People v Taylor, 1 NY3d 174, 177 [2003]; see also Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 688-690 [1984]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. S. Miller, J.P., Adams, Cozier 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, Queens County (Rios, J), rendered August 3, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, attempted robbery in the second degree (two counts), assault in the second degree, and assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he received the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563 [2000]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; cf. People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277 [2004]). The defendant failed to demonstrate that there were no strategic or other legitimate explanations for his attorney’s alleged shortcomings, and failed to overcome the presumption that “counsel acted in a competent manner and exercised professional judgment” in declining to make certain objections and requests (People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; see People v Taylor, 1 NY3d 174, 177 [2003]; see also Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 688-690 [1984]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. S. Miller, J.P., Adams, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 407, 777 N.Y.S.2d 764, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-louissant-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack