People v. Vidal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Vidal

21 A.D.3d 1339, 801 N.Y.S.2d 190

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 21 A.D.3d 1339 (People v. Vidal) 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. Vidal, 21 A.D.3d 1339, 801 N.Y.S.2d 190 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a [1340]*1340judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Kenneth R Fisher, J.), rendered January 21, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of attempted rape in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of attempted rape in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 130.35 [1]) and sexual abuse in the first degree (§ 130.65 [1]). We reject the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel (see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). The record establishes that defense counsel “vigorously pursued” a strategic defense (People v Garcia, 75 NY2d 973, 974 [1990]; see People v Cleveland, 281 AD2d 815, 816 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 900 [2001]). We also reject defendant’s contention that the sentence is unduly harsh or severe. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Gorski, Martoche, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

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

Appeal from a [1340]*1340judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Kenneth R Fisher, J.), rendered January 21, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of attempted rape in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of attempted rape in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 130.35 [1]) and sexual abuse in the first degree (§ 130.65 [1]). We reject the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel (see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). The record establishes that defense counsel “vigorously pursued” a strategic defense (People v Garcia, 75 NY2d 973, 974 [1990]; see People v Cleveland, 281 AD2d 815, 816 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 900 [2001]). We also reject defendant’s contention that the sentence is unduly harsh or severe. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Gorski, Martoche, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 1339, 801 N.Y.S.2d 190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-vidal-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack