People v. Moffett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Moffett

190 A.D.2d 1001, 593 N.Y.S.2d 628, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1178

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 190 A.D.2d 1001 (People v. Moffett) 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. Moffett, 190 A.D.2d 1001, 593 N.Y.S.2d 628, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1178 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel as a result of counsel’s failure to bring a suppression motion. The warrant to search defendant’s person and an apartment rented by him was issued based upon information from a confidential informant who had been reliable in the past and who had learned the information from observing and talking to defendant. Any motion to suppress the fruits of the search on the ground that the search warrant application was defective would have been futile. The circumstances of this case, viewed in totality, reveal that counsel provided defendant with meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137).

We have examined defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rossetti, J. — Criminal Possession Marihuana, 2nd Degree.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Boehm and Davis, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel as a result of counsel’s failure to bring a suppression motion. The warrant to search defendant’s person and an apartment rented by him was issued based upon information from a confidential informant who had been reliable in the past and who had learned the information from observing and talking to defendant. Any motion to suppress the fruits of the search on the ground that the search warrant application was defective would have been futile. The circumstances of this case, viewed in totality, reveal that counsel provided defendant with meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137).

We have examined defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rossetti, J. — Criminal Possession Marihuana, 2nd Degree.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Boehm and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 A.D.2d 1001, 593 N.Y.S.2d 628, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-moffett-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack