People v. Madonia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Madonia

299 A.D.2d 876, 749 N.Y.S.2d 204, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10928

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

DecidedNovember 15, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 299 A.D.2d 876 (People v. Madonia) 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. Madonia, 299 A.D.2d 876, 749 N.Y.S.2d 204, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10928 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of Oneida County Court (Dwyer, J.), entered June 1, 2001, convicting defendant after a jury trial of, inter alia, kidnapping in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of kidnapping in the second degree (Penal Law § 135.20) and other crimes, defendant contends that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel. We disagree. Viewing the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this case, in totality and as of the time of the representation, we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147; People v Latterell, 291 AD2d 881, 882, lv denied 98 NY2d 638). Present — Pine, J.P., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of Oneida County Court (Dwyer, J.), entered June 1, 2001, convicting defendant after a jury trial of, inter alia, kidnapping in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of kidnapping in the second degree (Penal Law § 135.20) and other crimes, defendant contends that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel. We disagree. Viewing the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this case, in totality and as of the time of the representation, we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147; People v Latterell, 291 AD2d 881, 882, lv denied 98 NY2d 638). Present — Pine, J.P., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 A.D.2d 876, 749 N.Y.S.2d 204, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10928, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-madonia-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack