People v. Rejab

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rejab

116 A.D.3d 577, 983 N.Y.S.2d 729

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

DecidedApril 17, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 116 A.D.3d 577 (People v. Rejab) 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. Rejab, 116 A.D.3d 577, 983 N.Y.S.2d 729 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered March 20, 2012, as amended March 22, 2012, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree and conspiracy in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 13V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

Although we find that defendant did not make a valid waiver of his right to appeal, we find that the only substantive issue he raises on appeal is without merit. Defendant asserts that the court failed to address his pro se motion for assignment of counsel, in which he claimed that his retained attorney was ineffective, and that he could no longer afford to pay for counsel. Nevertheless, defendant hired a new lawyer, who represented him at the time of the plea, and defendant does not make any complaint about the effectiveness of the new lawyer.

Accordingly, defendant’s claim does not survive his plea (see People v Petgen, 55 NY2d 529, 534-535 [1982]). Concur— Renwick, J.P, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered March 20, 2012, as amended March 22, 2012, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree and conspiracy in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 13V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

Although we find that defendant did not make a valid waiver of his right to appeal, we find that the only substantive issue he raises on appeal is without merit. Defendant asserts that the court failed to address his pro se motion for assignment of counsel, in which he claimed that his retained attorney was ineffective, and that he could no longer afford to pay for counsel. Nevertheless, defendant hired a new lawyer, who represented him at the time of the plea, and defendant does not make any complaint about the effectiveness of the new lawyer.

Accordingly, defendant’s claim does not survive his plea (see People v Petgen, 55 NY2d 529, 534-535 [1982]). Concur— Renwick, J.P, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.3d 577, 983 N.Y.S.2d 729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rejab-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack