People v. Wheeler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wheeler

7 A.D.3d 281, 776 N.Y.S.2d 48, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6540

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 6, 2004·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (John A.K. Bradley, J.), rendered April 10, 2002, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 12 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly sentenced defendant as a persistent violent felony offender. Defendant did not establish a factual basis for his constitutional challenge to a 1989 felony conviction. Defendant’s assertion that he “believed” that he “would have” instructed his attorney to file a notice of appeal from that conviction is factually insufficient to support his claim that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance by disregarding a direct instruction to file such a notice (see Roe v Flores-Ortega, 528 US 470 [2000]).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Lerner, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (John A.K. Bradley, J.), rendered April 10, 2002, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 12 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly sentenced defendant as a persistent violent felony offender. Defendant did not establish a factual basis for his constitutional challenge to a 1989 felony conviction. Defendant’s assertion that he “believed” that he “would have” instructed his attorney to file a notice of appeal from that conviction is factually insufficient to support his claim that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance by disregarding a direct instruction to file such a notice (see Roe v Flores-Ortega, 528 US 470 [2000]).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Lerner, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

People v. Wheeler, 7 A.D.3d 281, 776 N.Y.S.2d 48, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6540 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

7 A.D.3d 281 (People v. Wheeler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related