People v. Robledo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Robledo

127 A.D.2d 804, 512 N.Y.S.2d 202, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43291

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 127 A.D.2d 804 (People v. Robledo) 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. Robledo, 127 A.D.2d 804, 512 N.Y.S.2d 202, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43291 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Ritter, J.), rendered September 30, 1981, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and burglary in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel due to excessive racial references made by his attorney during the trial. We disagree. Defense counsel’s comments were apparently an attempt to establish that there had been a misidentification of the defendant by exploiting what he perceived to be a discrepancy between the description of the perpetrator given by the complaining witness and the defendant’s actual appearance. This was not ineffective assistance of counsel but a matter of trial strategy which does not afford a basis for reversal (see, People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137).

Further, we hold that the evidence adduced at the trial was sufficient to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Foster, 64 NY2d 1144, cert denied — US [805]*805—, 106 S Ct 166). Lawrence, J. P., Kunzeman, Spatt and Sullivan, 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 County Court, Orange County (Ritter, J.), rendered September 30, 1981, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and burglary in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel due to excessive racial references made by his attorney during the trial. We disagree. Defense counsel’s comments were apparently an attempt to establish that there had been a misidentification of the defendant by exploiting what he perceived to be a discrepancy between the description of the perpetrator given by the complaining witness and the defendant’s actual appearance. This was not ineffective assistance of counsel but a matter of trial strategy which does not afford a basis for reversal (see, People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137).

Further, we hold that the evidence adduced at the trial was sufficient to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Foster, 64 NY2d 1144, cert denied — US [805]*805—, 106 S Ct 166). Lawrence, J. P., Kunzeman, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.2d 804, 512 N.Y.S.2d 202, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-robledo-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack