People v. Tong Feng Lu

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tong Feng Lu

273 A.D.2d 327, 710 N.Y.S.2d 544, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6461

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 12, 2000·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), rendered April 28, 1997, convicting him of kidnapping in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying his challenge for [328] cause of two prospective jurors. The concerns manifested by the subject venirepersons did not rise to a level of actual bias or otherwise indicate that they would be unable to render an impartial verdict (see, People v Hernandez, 222 AD2d 696; People v Archer, 210 AD2d 241).

The imposition of consecutive sentences was not unlawful (see, People v Adams, 225 AD2d 506; People v Phillips, 208 AD2d 656, 656-657; People v Sutton, 208 AD2d 574).

Contrary to the claim raised in the defendant’s supplemental pro se brief, under the totality of the circumstances, he received the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712-713; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). Joy, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), rendered April 28, 1997, convicting him of kidnapping in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying his challenge for [328] cause of two prospective jurors. The concerns manifested by the subject venirepersons did not rise to a level of actual bias or otherwise indicate that they would be unable to render an impartial verdict (see, People v Hernandez, 222 AD2d 696; People v Archer, 210 AD2d 241).

The imposition of consecutive sentences was not unlawful (see, People v Adams, 225 AD2d 506; People v Phillips, 208 AD2d 656, 656-657; People v Sutton, 208 AD2d 574).

Contrary to the claim raised in the defendant’s supplemental pro se brief, under the totality of the circumstances, he received the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712-713; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). Joy, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

People v. Tong Feng Lu, 273 A.D.2d 327, 710 N.Y.S.2d 544, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6461 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

273 A.D.2d 327 (People v. Tong Feng Lu) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related