People v. Oquendo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Oquendo

112 A.D.2d 955, 492 N.Y.S.2d 635, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52169

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

DecidedAugust 5, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 112 A.D.2d 955 (People v. Oquendo) 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. Oquendo, 112 A.D.2d 955, 492 N.Y.S.2d 635, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52169 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kooper, J.), rendered December 8, 1982, convicting him of murder in the second degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[956]*956Judgment affirmed.

Contrary to defendant’s contention, his guilt was proven overwhelmingly beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, the trial court’s Sandoval ruling, permitting inquiry into a single conviction, was not an abuse of discretion (see, People v Williams, 56 NY2d 236; People v Davis, 44 NY2d 269; People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371). To the extent that defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is based on facts outside the record, defendant’s appropriate remedy is to bring a postconviction proceeding under CPL 440.10 (see, People v Brown, 45 NY2d 852; People v Drummond, 99 AD2d 760). We have considered defendant’s other claims and we reject them. Gibbons, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kooper, J.), rendered December 8, 1982, convicting him of murder in the second degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[956]*956Judgment affirmed.

Contrary to defendant’s contention, his guilt was proven overwhelmingly beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, the trial court’s Sandoval ruling, permitting inquiry into a single conviction, was not an abuse of discretion (see, People v Williams, 56 NY2d 236; People v Davis, 44 NY2d 269; People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371). To the extent that defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is based on facts outside the record, defendant’s appropriate remedy is to bring a postconviction proceeding under CPL 440.10 (see, People v Brown, 45 NY2d 852; People v Drummond, 99 AD2d 760). We have considered defendant’s other claims and we reject them. Gibbons, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.2d 955, 492 N.Y.S.2d 635, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-oquendo-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack