People v. Rhamo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rhamo

77 A.D.3d 499, 908 N.Y.S.2d 586

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

DecidedOctober 19, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 77 A.D.3d 499 (People v. Rhamo) 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. Rhamo, 77 A.D.3d 499, 908 N.Y.S.2d 586 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Margaret L. Clancy, J.), rendered April 7, 2008, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the third degree, menacing in the third degree and harassment in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of three years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel arguments are not reviewable on direct appeal since they involve matters outside the record concerning counsel’s trial preparation and choice of trial tactics (see People v Love, 57 NY2d 998 [1982]). To the extent the existing record permits review, it establishes that defendant received effective assistance under both the state and federal standards (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; see also Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Margaret L. Clancy, J.), rendered April 7, 2008, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the third degree, menacing in the third degree and harassment in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of three years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel arguments are not reviewable on direct appeal since they involve matters outside the record concerning counsel’s trial preparation and choice of trial tactics (see People v Love, 57 NY2d 998 [1982]). To the extent the existing record permits review, it establishes that defendant received effective assistance under both the state and federal standards (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; see also Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A.D.3d 499, 908 N.Y.S.2d 586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rhamo-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack