People v. Weathers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Weathers

287 A.D.2d 753, 732 N.Y.S.2d 346, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10124

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

DecidedOctober 29, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 287 A.D.2d 753 (People v. Weathers) 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. Weathers, 287 A.D.2d 753, 732 N.Y.S.2d 346, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10124 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), imposed May 31, 2000, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, after a hearing, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of criminal contempt in the first degree.

[754]*754Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

Nothing in the record supports the defendant’s contention that there was a conflict of interest between himself and defense counsel. The defendant’s arguments as to the effectiveness of his representation concerning matters which are dehors the record are not reviewable on direct appeal (see, People v Zito, 234 AD2d 614; People v Lawrence, 100 AD2d 944; People v Penna, 70 AD2d 646).

The sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Ritter, J. P., Krausman, S. Miller and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), imposed May 31, 2000, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, after a hearing, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of criminal contempt in the first degree.

[754]*754Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

Nothing in the record supports the defendant’s contention that there was a conflict of interest between himself and defense counsel. The defendant’s arguments as to the effectiveness of his representation concerning matters which are dehors the record are not reviewable on direct appeal (see, People v Zito, 234 AD2d 614; People v Lawrence, 100 AD2d 944; People v Penna, 70 AD2d 646).

The sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Ritter, J. P., Krausman, S. Miller and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 753, 732 N.Y.S.2d 346, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-weathers-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack