People v. Whitfield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Whitfield

213 A.D.2d 981, 625 N.Y.S.2d 970, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3762

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D.2d 981 (People v. Whitfield) 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. Whitfield, 213 A.D.2d 981, 625 N.Y.S.2d 970, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3762 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel by his counsel’s failure to inform him of a plea offer by the People. At sentencing defense counsel stated that another Public Defender had failed to communicate that offer to defendant. There is no evidentiary basis in this record to support defendant’s contention. Defendant’s reliance on People v Alexander (136 Misc 2d 573) is misplaced; that case was decided after a hearing on defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion. We conclude that

[982]*982defendant’s sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J.—Attempted Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel by his counsel’s failure to inform him of a plea offer by the People. At sentencing defense counsel stated that another Public Defender had failed to communicate that offer to defendant. There is no evidentiary basis in this record to support defendant’s contention. Defendant’s reliance on People v Alexander (136 Misc 2d 573) is misplaced; that case was decided after a hearing on defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion. We conclude that

[982]*982defendant’s sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J.—Attempted Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 981, 625 N.Y.S.2d 970, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-whitfield-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack