People v. Witherspoon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Witherspoon

204 A.D.2d 186, 612 N.Y.S.2d 860, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5438

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

DecidedMay 19, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 204 A.D.2d 186 (People v. Witherspoon) 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. Witherspoon, 204 A.D.2d 186, 612 N.Y.S.2d 860, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5438 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Angela Mazzarelli, J.), rendered April 15, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and sentencing him to concurrent prison terms of 6 to 12 years, 6 to 12 years, SVz to 7 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s generalized dissatisfaction with the representation of counsel immediately after the suppression hearing was insufficient to require any extended inquiry by the court other than the minimal response given (see, People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 18-19, cert denied 459 US 1178). Concur—Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Kupferman and Tom, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Angela Mazzarelli, J.), rendered April 15, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and sentencing him to concurrent prison terms of 6 to 12 years, 6 to 12 years, SVz to 7 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s generalized dissatisfaction with the representation of counsel immediately after the suppression hearing was insufficient to require any extended inquiry by the court other than the minimal response given (see, People v Sawyer, 57 NY2d 12, 18-19, cert denied 459 US 1178). Concur—Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Kupferman and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 186, 612 N.Y.S.2d 860, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-witherspoon-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack