People v. Perry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Perry

156 A.D.2d 971, 550 N.Y.S.2d 866, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16562

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 156 A.D.2d 971 (People v. Perry) 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. Perry, 156 A.D.2d 971, 550 N.Y.S.2d 866, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16562 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. From our review of the evidence, law and circumstances of this case, we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147). Defendant further contends that prosecutorial misconduct mandates reversal. That issue has not been preserved for review since no objection was raised at trial (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Dawson, 50 NY2d 311, 324). Moreover, the cumulative effect of the asserted errors did not [972]*972deprive defendant of a fair trial and we find no basis for reversing the conviction in the interest of justice (CPL 470.15 [6]; People v McCormick, 100 AD2d 723; cf, People v Balkum, 94 AD2d 933).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J. — criminal possession forged instrument, second degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. From our review of the evidence, law and circumstances of this case, we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147). Defendant further contends that prosecutorial misconduct mandates reversal. That issue has not been preserved for review since no objection was raised at trial (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Dawson, 50 NY2d 311, 324). Moreover, the cumulative effect of the asserted errors did not [972]*972deprive defendant of a fair trial and we find no basis for reversing the conviction in the interest of justice (CPL 470.15 [6]; People v McCormick, 100 AD2d 723; cf, People v Balkum, 94 AD2d 933).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J. — criminal possession forged instrument, second degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 A.D.2d 971, 550 N.Y.S.2d 866, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-perry-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack