People v. Robertson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Robertson

247 A.D.2d 887, 668 N.Y.S.2d 526, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1219

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 887 (People v. Robertson) 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. Robertson, 247 A.D.2d 887, 668 N.Y.S.2d 526, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1219 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.06). We reject the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. The evidence, the law and the circumstances of this case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, establish that defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see, People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 798-799; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the verdict is not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495), nor was defendant deprived of a fair trial by cumulative trial errors. Defendant’s sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 5th Degree.)

Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Hayes, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.06). We reject the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. The evidence, the law and the circumstances of this case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, establish that defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see, People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 798-799; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the verdict is not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495), nor was defendant deprived of a fair trial by cumulative trial errors. Defendant’s sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 5th Degree.)

Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Hayes, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 887, 668 N.Y.S.2d 526, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-robertson-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack