People v. Silverio-Mercedes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Silverio-Mercedes

239 A.D.2d 923, 661 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6290

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

DecidedMay 30, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 923 (People v. Silverio-Mercedes) 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. Silverio-Mercedes, 239 A.D.2d 923, 661 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6290 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second and third degrees. We reject the contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Counsel’s failure to object to the admission of double hearsay testimony did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Dietz, 79 AD2d 476, 477). Further, defendant failed to establish that a motion to suppress physical evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant, if made, would have been successful (see, People v Torrence, 135 AD2d 1075, 1076). We conclude that the cumulative effect of those and other alleged deficiencies, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, did not deprive defendant of effective assistance and that counsel’s representation was meaningful (see, People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 798-799; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Elliott, J.—Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second and third degrees. We reject the contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Counsel’s failure to object to the admission of double hearsay testimony did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Dietz, 79 AD2d 476, 477). Further, defendant failed to establish that a motion to suppress physical evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant, if made, would have been successful (see, People v Torrence, 135 AD2d 1075, 1076). We conclude that the cumulative effect of those and other alleged deficiencies, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, did not deprive defendant of effective assistance and that counsel’s representation was meaningful (see, People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 798-799; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Elliott, J.—Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 923, 661 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-silverio-mercedes-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack