People v. Thayer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Thayer

216 A.D.2d 934, 629 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7268

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

DecidedJune 9, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 216 A.D.2d 934 (People v. Thayer) 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. Thayer, 216 A.D.2d 934, 629 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7268 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of one count of sodomy in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.50 [3]), and now contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. That contention is without merit. Defendant has [935]*935failed to demonstrate that he was deprived of a fair trial by less than meaningful representation. "[T]he evidence, the law, and the circumstances of [the] case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that [defendant’s] attorney provided meaningful representation” (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137,147; see, People v Russo, 85 NY2d 872, 874; People v Hobot, 84 NY2d 1021; People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184). (Appeal from Judgment of Genesee County Court, Morton, J.—Sodomy, 1st Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of one count of sodomy in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.50 [3]), and now contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. That contention is without merit. Defendant has [935]*935failed to demonstrate that he was deprived of a fair trial by less than meaningful representation. "[T]he evidence, the law, and the circumstances of [the] case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that [defendant’s] attorney provided meaningful representation” (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137,147; see, People v Russo, 85 NY2d 872, 874; People v Hobot, 84 NY2d 1021; People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184). (Appeal from Judgment of Genesee County Court, Morton, J.—Sodomy, 1st Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 934, 629 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-thayer-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack