People v. Robertson

247 A.D.2d 887, 668 N.Y.S.2d 526, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1219
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Robertson. Read the opinion of the Court — 279 A.D.2d 711

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

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).

247 A.D.2d 887 (People v. Robertson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Baldi
429 N.E.2d 400 (New York Court of Appeals, 1981)
People v. Satterfield
488 N.E.2d 834 (New York Court of Appeals, 1985)
People v. Bleakley
508 N.E.2d 672 (New York Court of Appeals, 1987)