People v. Rogers

154 A.D.2d 924, 546 N.Y.S.2d 995, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12964
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Rogers. Read the opinion of the Court — 138 A.D.2d 419

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel; viewing together the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case, we find that meaningful representation was provided (see, People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 798-800; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147). We also reject his contention that his sentence was harsh and excessive. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J. — criminal sale of controlled substance, third degree.) Present — Denman, J. P., Green, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

People v. Rogers, 154 A.D.2d 924, 546 N.Y.S.2d 995, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12964 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

154 A.D.2d 924 (People v. Rogers) — 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)