People v. Muriel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Muriel

260 A.D.2d 409, 686 N.Y.S.2d 712, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3535

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

DecidedApril 5, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 260 A.D.2d 409 (People v. Muriel) 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. Muriel, 260 A.D.2d 409, 686 N.Y.S.2d 712, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3535 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (McKay, J.), rendered March 4, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

To the extent that the defendant’s contention that his plea was obtained in violation of his right to the effective assistance of counsel involves matters dehors the record, it is not properly before this Court (see, People v Williams, 145 AD2d 672). Based upon the record before us, and under the totality of circumstances presented, the two attorneys who successively served the defendant at plea and at sentencing effectively and meaningfully represented his interests (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137).

Finally, there is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court erred in failing to grant an evidentiary hearing with regard to the alleged ineffective assistance of the attorney who represented him at the plea (see, People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and McGinity, 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, Kings County (McKay, J.), rendered March 4, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

To the extent that the defendant’s contention that his plea was obtained in violation of his right to the effective assistance of counsel involves matters dehors the record, it is not properly before this Court (see, People v Williams, 145 AD2d 672). Based upon the record before us, and under the totality of circumstances presented, the two attorneys who successively served the defendant at plea and at sentencing effectively and meaningfully represented his interests (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137).

Finally, there is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court erred in failing to grant an evidentiary hearing with regard to the alleged ineffective assistance of the attorney who represented him at the plea (see, People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 409, 686 N.Y.S.2d 712, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-muriel-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack