People v. Thomas

206 A.D.2d 927, 616 N.Y.S.2d 295, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7869
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 15, 1994·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention that defendant’s absence during a Sandoval conference warrants reversal. Subsequent proceedings held on the record in defendant’s presence constituted a de novo Sandoval hearing (see, People v Russell, 191 AD2d 1001, lv denied 81 NY2d 1019; People v Berger, 188 AD2d 1073, 1074, lv denied 81 NY2d 881).

The contention that defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel is without merit. The constitutional standard for meaningful representation was satisfied (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Defendant’s sentence is neither harsh nor excessive.

We have reviewed the contentions contained in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, Drury, J.— Sodomy, 1st Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Balio, Fallon, Wesley and Davis, JJ.

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

People v. Thomas, 206 A.D.2d 927, 616 N.Y.S.2d 295, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7869 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

206 A.D.2d 927 (People v. Thomas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Lynch
216 A.D.2d 929 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
People v. Flax
212 A.D.2d 1033 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)