People v. Pelaez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pelaez

186 A.D.2d 465, 589 N.Y.S.2d 774, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12166

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 22, 1992·Published

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ira Globerman, J.), rendered June 30, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, and sentencing him to 18 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Trial counsel’s decision not to move for a severance was an effective trial strategy that resulted in the dismissal of three out of five counts, including an acquittal on the top count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree. There was no irreconcilable conflict between the defenses presented by the codefendants requiring severance under the rationale of People v Mahboubian (74 NY2d 174), nor was defendant unduly prejudiced or his defense discernably compromised by the introduction of evidence relating solely to the codefendant (cf., People v Castro-Restrepo, 169 AD2d 454, lv denied 77 NY2d 993).

It therefore cannot be said upon this record that defendant received "less than meaningful representation” (People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 708). Concur — Carro, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ira Globerman, J.), rendered June 30, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, and sentencing him to 18 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Trial counsel’s decision not to move for a severance was an effective trial strategy that resulted in the dismissal of three out of five counts, including an acquittal on the top count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree. There was no irreconcilable conflict between the defenses presented by the codefendants requiring severance under the rationale of People v Mahboubian (74 NY2d 174), nor was defendant unduly prejudiced or his defense discernably compromised by the introduction of evidence relating solely to the codefendant (cf., People v Castro-Restrepo, 169 AD2d 454, lv denied 77 NY2d 993).

It therefore cannot be said upon this record that defendant received "less than meaningful representation” (People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 708). Concur — Carro, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.

People v. Pelaez, 186 A.D.2d 465, 589 N.Y.S.2d 774, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12166 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

186 A.D.2d 465 (People v. Pelaez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related