People v. Murchison

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Murchison

4 A.D.3d 376, 770 N.Y.S.2d 873, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1031

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 4 A.D.3d 376 (People v. Murchison) 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. Murchison, 4 A.D.3d 376, 770 N.Y.S.2d 873, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1031 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens [377]*377County (Rios, J.), rendered November 17, 1997, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel rests primarily on matter which is dehors the record and therefore cannot be reviewed on direct appeal (see Matter of James G., 309 AD2d 935 [2003]; People v Bennett, 284 AD2d 338 [2001]; People v Sanford, 121 AD2d 483 [1986]). To the extent that we are able to review the claim of ineffective assistance, the defense counsel’s performance met the standard of meaningful representation (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]). Ritter, J.E, Krausman, Townes and Cozier, 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 [377]*377County (Rios, J.), rendered November 17, 1997, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel rests primarily on matter which is dehors the record and therefore cannot be reviewed on direct appeal (see Matter of James G., 309 AD2d 935 [2003]; People v Bennett, 284 AD2d 338 [2001]; People v Sanford, 121 AD2d 483 [1986]). To the extent that we are able to review the claim of ineffective assistance, the defense counsel’s performance met the standard of meaningful representation (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]). Ritter, J.E, Krausman, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.3d 376, 770 N.Y.S.2d 873, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1031, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-murchison-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack