People v. Vega

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Vega

268 A.D.2d 257, 701 N.Y.S.2d 369, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 319

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

DecidedJanuary 11, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 257 (People v. Vega) 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. Vega, 268 A.D.2d 257, 701 N.Y.S.2d 369, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 319 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edward Davidowitz, J.), rendered June 17, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6V2 to 13 years, unanimously affirmed.

On the existing record, we find that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714). Trial counsel followed an appropriate strategy by stipulating to the chemist’s testimony. There was no reason to doubt the accuracy of the routine laboratory report finding heroin in the single glossine envelope sold to the undercover officer, and counsel properly chose not to distract the jury. The remaining alleged shortcomings of counsel could not have deprived defendant of a fair trial. Concur—Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Wallach, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edward Davidowitz, J.), rendered June 17, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6V2 to 13 years, unanimously affirmed.

On the existing record, we find that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714). Trial counsel followed an appropriate strategy by stipulating to the chemist’s testimony. There was no reason to doubt the accuracy of the routine laboratory report finding heroin in the single glossine envelope sold to the undercover officer, and counsel properly chose not to distract the jury. The remaining alleged shortcomings of counsel could not have deprived defendant of a fair trial. Concur—Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Wallach, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 257, 701 N.Y.S.2d 369, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-vega-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack