People v. Porter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Porter

3 A.D.3d 543, 770 N.Y.S.2d 631, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 479

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 3 A.D.3d 543 (People v. Porter) 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. Porter, 3 A.D.3d 543, 770 N.Y.S.2d 631, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 479 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), rendered April 3, 2002, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, assault in the third degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defense counsel’s failure to request, indeed, his waiver of a Sandoval ruling (People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]), with the defendant’s consent on the record, did not deny the defendant the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Henderson, 265 AD2d 573 [1999]; People v Knox, 134 AD2d 704, 705 [1987]; People v Durham, 225 AD2d 960, 961 [1996]). Where, as here, “the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of [the] case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation,” the constitutional requirement of effective assistance of counsel is satisfied (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Santucci, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Crane, 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, Kings County (Knipel, J.), rendered April 3, 2002, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, assault in the third degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defense counsel’s failure to request, indeed, his waiver of a Sandoval ruling (People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]), with the defendant’s consent on the record, did not deny the defendant the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Henderson, 265 AD2d 573 [1999]; People v Knox, 134 AD2d 704, 705 [1987]; People v Durham, 225 AD2d 960, 961 [1996]). Where, as here, “the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of [the] case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation,” the constitutional requirement of effective assistance of counsel is satisfied (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Santucci, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.3d 543, 770 N.Y.S.2d 631, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 479, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-porter-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack