People v. Nartowicz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nartowicz

237 A.D.2d 625, 655 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2994

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 237 A.D.2d 625 (People v. Nartowicz) 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. Nartowicz, 237 A.D.2d 625, 655 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2994 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Thorp, J.), rendered June 15, 1995, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence under Indictment No. 89760, and (2) an amended judgment of the same court, also rendered June 15, 1995, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, under S.C.I. No. 80987.

Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.

We find unpersuasive the defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Viewing the record as a whole, trial counsel vigorously pursued various motions, presented a viable defense, and offered a cogent summation. Thus, the trial counsel supplied the defendant with meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147; see also, People v Lockhart, 167 AD2d 427).

Since the violation of probation was based, among other things, on the conviction under Indictment No. 89760, his probation was properly revoked.

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and [626]*626find them to be without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Thorp, J.), rendered June 15, 1995, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence under Indictment No. 89760, and (2) an amended judgment of the same court, also rendered June 15, 1995, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, under S.C.I. No. 80987.

Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.

We find unpersuasive the defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Viewing the record as a whole, trial counsel vigorously pursued various motions, presented a viable defense, and offered a cogent summation. Thus, the trial counsel supplied the defendant with meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147; see also, People v Lockhart, 167 AD2d 427).

Since the violation of probation was based, among other things, on the conviction under Indictment No. 89760, his probation was properly revoked.

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and [626]*626find them to be without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 625, 655 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2994, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-nartowicz-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack