People v. Oliviera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Oliviera

168 A.D.2d 691

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 168 A.D.2d 691 (People v. Oliviera) 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. Oliviera, 168 A.D.2d 691 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Brien, J.), rendered June 8, 1988, convicting her of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel by her attorney’s failure to adequately explain the consequences of rejecting a plea offer. However, since the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel is based on matters dehors the record, it should have been raised in a posttrial application brought pursuant to CPL 440.10 (see, [692]*692People v Brown, 45 NY2d 852, 853, 854; People v Camacho, 154 AD2d 611; People v Hamlin, 153 AD2d 644, 645).

The defendant’s other contentions are either without merit or not preserved for appellate review, and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Miller and Ritter, 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 County (O’Brien, J.), rendered June 8, 1988, convicting her of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel by her attorney’s failure to adequately explain the consequences of rejecting a plea offer. However, since the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel is based on matters dehors the record, it should have been raised in a posttrial application brought pursuant to CPL 440.10 (see, [692]*692People v Brown, 45 NY2d 852, 853, 854; People v Camacho, 154 AD2d 611; People v Hamlin, 153 AD2d 644, 645).

The defendant’s other contentions are either without merit or not preserved for appellate review, and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D.2d 691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-oliviera-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack