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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 29, 2001·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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] Ordered 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] Ordered 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.

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

287 A.D.2d 753 (People v. Weathers) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related