People v. Orengo

769 N.E.2d 344, 97 N.Y.2d 739, 742 N.Y.S.2d 598, 2002 N.Y. LEXIS 547
New York Court of Appeals·Decided March 21, 2002·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The Appellate Division properly determined that the sentencing court did not base its determination upon inaccurate information. Here, the record indicates that the sentencing court did not consider any of the prosecutor’s inaccurate assertions in its sentencing determination, but predicated that sentence on the nature and details of the particular crime of *740 which defendant was convicted. Moreover, the Appellate Division correctly determined that, as a matter of law, defendant’s counsel was not ineffective (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt and Graffeo concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

People v. Orengo, 769 N.E.2d 344, 97 N.Y.2d 739, 742 N.Y.S.2d 598, 2002 N.Y. LEXIS 547 (N.Y. 2002).

769 N.E.2d 344 (People v. Orengo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

HOUSTON, CORDARISE, PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016
People v. Houston
142 A.D.3d 1397 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. Griffin
134 A.D.3d 1228 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. Metovic
48 A.D.3d 832 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Downs
38 A.D.3d 1019 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)