People v. Mendoza

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mendoza

166 A.D.2d 314, 560 N.Y.S.2d 774, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12734

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

DecidedOctober 23, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 166 A.D.2d 314 (People v. Mendoza) 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. Mendoza, 166 A.D.2d 314, 560 N.Y.S.2d 774, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12734 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered February 11, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentencing him to a term of 4½ to 9 years’ imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of the sale of heroin arising out of a "buy-and-bust” operation. Defendant’s argument that he was denied effective assistance of counsel is not supported by the record. (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147.) Defense counsel prepared her case for trial and put forth a viable defense of misidentification. Prior to trial, defense counsel submitted written motions requesting dismissal of the indictment, a bill of particulars, suppression of identification testimony, a Sandoval ruling and all Brady material. At trial, defense counsel proceeded on the theory of misidentification, contending that the description given was limited to defendant’s clothing, which was not unique, and did not embrace facial characteristics. She also emphasized that no money or drugs were recovered to support her position that the wrong man was arrested. The totality of the circumstances indicate that defendant was afforded meaningful representation. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Asch, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered February 11, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentencing him to a term of 4½ to 9 years’ imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of the sale of heroin arising out of a "buy-and-bust” operation. Defendant’s argument that he was denied effective assistance of counsel is not supported by the record. (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147.) Defense counsel prepared her case for trial and put forth a viable defense of misidentification. Prior to trial, defense counsel submitted written motions requesting dismissal of the indictment, a bill of particulars, suppression of identification testimony, a Sandoval ruling and all Brady material. At trial, defense counsel proceeded on the theory of misidentification, contending that the description given was limited to defendant’s clothing, which was not unique, and did not embrace facial characteristics. She also emphasized that no money or drugs were recovered to support her position that the wrong man was arrested. The totality of the circumstances indicate that defendant was afforded meaningful representation. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Asch, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D.2d 314, 560 N.Y.S.2d 774, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12734, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mendoza-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack