People v. Pangburn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pangburn

210 A.D.2d 902, 621 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13363

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 210 A.D.2d 902 (People v. Pangburn) 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. Pangburn, 210 A.D.2d 902, 621 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13363 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgments unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel is without merit (see, People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 708-709; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147; People v Adams, 151 AD2d 921, 922-923; People v Wall, 142 AD2d 883, 884, lv denied 73 NY2d 861). The contentions of defendant in his pro se supplemental brief regarding, inter alia, his counsel’s failure to communicate with him and to make pretrial motions are based on matters outside the record and, therefore, may not be considered on this appeal (see, People v Williams, 151 AD2d 795, 796, lv denied 76 NY2d 744).

Finally, upon our review of the record, we conclude that the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor excessive. (Appeal from Judgments of Livingston County Court, Cicoria, J.—Burglary, 1st Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Balio, Fallon, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgments unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel is without merit (see, People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 708-709; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147; People v Adams, 151 AD2d 921, 922-923; People v Wall, 142 AD2d 883, 884, lv denied 73 NY2d 861). The contentions of defendant in his pro se supplemental brief regarding, inter alia, his counsel’s failure to communicate with him and to make pretrial motions are based on matters outside the record and, therefore, may not be considered on this appeal (see, People v Williams, 151 AD2d 795, 796, lv denied 76 NY2d 744).

Finally, upon our review of the record, we conclude that the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor excessive. (Appeal from Judgments of Livingston County Court, Cicoria, J.—Burglary, 1st Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Balio, Fallon, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 902, 621 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pangburn-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack