People v. Roman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Roman

250 A.D.2d 477, 672 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6189

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

DecidedMay 19, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 477 (People v. Roman) 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. Roman, 250 A.D.2d 477, 672 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6189 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia Williams, J.), rendered September 11, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5V2 to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

The existing record, which defendant has not sought to amplify by way of a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 (see, People v Love, 57 NY2d 998) establishes that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Hobot, 84 NY2d 1021, 1024; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137).

Defendant’s arguments concerning his motion made pursuant to CPL 190.50 (5) (c) are without merit (see, People v Wiggins, 89 NY2d 872). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia Williams, J.), rendered September 11, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5V2 to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

The existing record, which defendant has not sought to amplify by way of a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 (see, People v Love, 57 NY2d 998) establishes that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Hobot, 84 NY2d 1021, 1024; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137).

Defendant’s arguments concerning his motion made pursuant to CPL 190.50 (5) (c) are without merit (see, People v Wiggins, 89 NY2d 872). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 477, 672 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-roman-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack