People v. Wheeler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wheeler

281 A.D.2d 949, 722 N.Y.S.2d 446, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2891

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 949 (People v. Wheeler) 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. Wheeler, 281 A.D.2d 949, 722 N.Y.S.2d 446, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment [950]*950unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184, 189). County Court’s Sandoval compromise reflects a proper exercise of the court’s discretion (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459; People v Davis, 168 AD2d 218, lv denied 77 NY2d 876). The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), is legally sufficient to support the conviction. Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that prosecutorial misconduct deprived him of a fair trial (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641, 642), and we decline to exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Steuben County Court, Furfure, J. — Aggravated Unlicensed Operation Motor Vehicle, 1st Degree.) Present— Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Wisner, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

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

Judgment [950]*950unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184, 189). County Court’s Sandoval compromise reflects a proper exercise of the court’s discretion (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459; People v Davis, 168 AD2d 218, lv denied 77 NY2d 876). The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), is legally sufficient to support the conviction. Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that prosecutorial misconduct deprived him of a fair trial (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641, 642), and we decline to exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Steuben County Court, Furfure, J. — Aggravated Unlicensed Operation Motor Vehicle, 1st Degree.) Present— Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Wisner, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 949, 722 N.Y.S.2d 446, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wheeler-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack