People v. Smitherman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Smitherman

255 A.D.2d 224, 679 N.Y.S.2d 822, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12455

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D.2d 224 (People v. Smitherman) 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. Smitherman, 255 A.D.2d 224, 679 N.Y.S.2d 822, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12455 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J.), rendered April 23, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in summarily denying defendant’s request for new assigned counsel made on the day of trial, since defendant failed to make allegations of good cause for substitution that were sufficient to warrant inquiry by the court (People v Beriguette, 84 NY2d 978). Defendant’s application amounted to a request for reconsideration of a baseless request for new counsel previously denied by another Justice.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.

The arguments contained in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief are based on factual allegations dehors the record and are thus unreviewable on this appeal. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J.), rendered April 23, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in summarily denying defendant’s request for new assigned counsel made on the day of trial, since defendant failed to make allegations of good cause for substitution that were sufficient to warrant inquiry by the court (People v Beriguette, 84 NY2d 978). Defendant’s application amounted to a request for reconsideration of a baseless request for new counsel previously denied by another Justice.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.

The arguments contained in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief are based on factual allegations dehors the record and are thus unreviewable on this appeal. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 224, 679 N.Y.S.2d 822, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-smitherman-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack