People v. Yong Kuk An

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Yong Kuk An

199 A.D.2d 1075, 608 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12766

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 199 A.D.2d 1075 (People v. Yong Kuk An) 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. Yong Kuk An, 199 A.D.2d 1075, 608 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12766 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Although defense counsel did not move to suppress evidence and did not raise identification issues, there is no indication in the record that those were colorable claims. Defendant failed to demonstrate that no legitimate explanation existed for counsel’s failure to make the motions (see, People v Garcia, 75 NY2d 973, 974; People v Duvall, 190 AD2d 988).

Defendant’s contention that the plea allocution was insufficient is also without merit. Defendant’s recitation of the facts did not cast doubt upon his guilt nor did it otherwise call into question the plea and the court, therefore, had no duty to inquire further (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Connell, J.— Assault, 1st Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Balio, Fallon, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Although defense counsel did not move to suppress evidence and did not raise identification issues, there is no indication in the record that those were colorable claims. Defendant failed to demonstrate that no legitimate explanation existed for counsel’s failure to make the motions (see, People v Garcia, 75 NY2d 973, 974; People v Duvall, 190 AD2d 988).

Defendant’s contention that the plea allocution was insufficient is also without merit. Defendant’s recitation of the facts did not cast doubt upon his guilt nor did it otherwise call into question the plea and the court, therefore, had no duty to inquire further (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Connell, J.— Assault, 1st Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Balio, Fallon, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 1075, 608 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-yong-kuk-an-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack