People v. Peralta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Peralta

170 A.D.2d 715, 566 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1374

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 170 A.D.2d 715 (People v. Peralta) 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. Peralta, 170 A.D.2d 715, 566 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1374 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Harris, J.), rendered October 11, 1988, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree.

On this appeal, the only issue raised by defendant concerns the question of whether he received effective assistance of counsel due to the joint representation by his attorney of both defendant and defendant’s brother, Carlos Peralta, Jr., at their joint trial. However, this court recently dealt with this same issue when the appeal by defendant’s brother was before us (see, People v Peralta, 168 AD2d 786). Since we rejected the argument of ineffective assistance of counsel in that case, we likewise reject it here. Accordingly, defendant’s conviction should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Crew III, and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Harris, J.), rendered October 11, 1988, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree.

On this appeal, the only issue raised by defendant concerns the question of whether he received effective assistance of counsel due to the joint representation by his attorney of both defendant and defendant’s brother, Carlos Peralta, Jr., at their joint trial. However, this court recently dealt with this same issue when the appeal by defendant’s brother was before us (see, People v Peralta, 168 AD2d 786). Since we rejected the argument of ineffective assistance of counsel in that case, we likewise reject it here. Accordingly, defendant’s conviction should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Crew III, and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 A.D.2d 715, 566 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-peralta-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack