People v. Paguay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Paguay

132 A.D.3d 1014, 18 N.Y.S.3d 354

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

DecidedOctober 28, 2015

Docket2013-05375

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 132 A.D.3d 1014 (People v. Paguay) 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. Paguay, 132 A.D.3d 1014, 18 N.Y.S.3d 354 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Holder, J.), rendered April 30, 2013, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, burglary in the second degree (two counts), aggravated criminal contempt, criminal contempt in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, rape in the first degree, assault in the second degree, assault in the third degree, unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, and criminal contempt in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the conviction of assault in the third degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

“A criminal defendant is guaranteed the effective assistance of counsel under both the federal and the state constitutions” (People v Graham, 129 AD3d 860, 861 [2015]; see US Const Sixth Amend; NY Const, art I, § 6). Here, contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel under the New York Constitution because, viewing the record in its totality, defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Further, the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel under the United States Constitution (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]).

As the People correctly concede, the defendant’s conviction of assault in the third degree must be vacated and that count of *1015 the indictment dismissed as an inclusory concurrent count of assault in the second degree (see CPL 300.40 [3] [b]; Penal Law § 120.05 [2]; 120.00 [1]).

Eng, P.J., Chambers, Roman and Barros, 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 (Holder, J.), rendered April 30, 2013, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, burglary in the second degree (two counts), aggravated criminal contempt, criminal contempt in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, rape in the first degree, assault in the second degree, assault in the third degree, unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, and criminal contempt in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the conviction of assault in the third degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

“A criminal defendant is guaranteed the effective assistance of counsel under both the federal and the state constitutions” (People v Graham, 129 AD3d 860, 861 [2015]; see US Const Sixth Amend; NY Const, art I, § 6). Here, contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel under the New York Constitution because, viewing the record in its totality, defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Further, the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel under the United States Constitution (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]).

As the People correctly concede, the defendant’s conviction of assault in the third degree must be vacated and that count of *1015 the indictment dismissed as an inclusory concurrent count of assault in the second degree (see CPL 300.40 [3] [b]; Penal Law § 120.05 [2]; 120.00 [1]).

Eng, P.J., Chambers, Roman and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 A.D.3d 1014, 18 N.Y.S.3d 354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-paguay-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack