People v. Verdugo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Verdugo

72 A.D.3d 515

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

DecidedApril 15, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 72 A.D.3d 515 (People v. Verdugo) 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. Verdugo, 72 A.D.3d 515 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (A. Kirke Bartley, J., at plea; Laura Ward, J., at sentence), rendered September 8, 2006, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of three years, and order, same court (Patricia Nunez, J.), entered on or about March 4, 2008, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment, unanimously affirmed.

After a thorough evidentiary hearing, the court properly denied defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment, made on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations (see generally People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). Defendant received effective assistance in connection with his guilty plea (see People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]). The credible evidence established that counsel provided competent advice concerning sentencing and immigration matters and the viability of an agency defense, and it establishes that defendant did not need an interpreter. Concur—Andrias, J.P., McGuire, Moskowitz, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (A. Kirke Bartley, J., at plea; Laura Ward, J., at sentence), rendered September 8, 2006, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of three years, and order, same court (Patricia Nunez, J.), entered on or about March 4, 2008, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment, unanimously affirmed.

After a thorough evidentiary hearing, the court properly denied defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment, made on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations (see generally People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). Defendant received effective assistance in connection with his guilty plea (see People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]). The credible evidence established that counsel provided competent advice concerning sentencing and immigration matters and the viability of an agency defense, and it establishes that defendant did not need an interpreter. Concur—Andrias, J.P., McGuire, Moskowitz, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.3d 515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-verdugo-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack