From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Divine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 27, 1993
193 A.D.2d 562 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

May 27, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (William T. Martin, J.).


That defendant did not have the same lawyer at every stage of the proceeding did not serve to deny him his right to counsel since the trial court immediately appointed an attorney whenever defendant appeared in court without one (CPL 180.10). Nor was defendant denied his right to effective assistance of counsel because one of the attorneys representing him failed to interview a possible alibi witness, there being no showing that the trial would have had a different outcome had such interview been conducted (People v Douglas, 178 A.D.2d 651, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 946). Defendant's argument that the complainant testified at the Wade hearing while defendant was absent from the courtroom is unsupported by any evidentiary proof, and thus his motion to vacate the conviction was properly denied.

Finally, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing the defendant.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Milonas, Kupferman, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Divine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 27, 1993
193 A.D.2d 562 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Divine

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. UNIQUE DIVINE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 27, 1993

Citations

193 A.D.2d 562 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
598 N.Y.S.2d 211

Citing Cases

People v. Mohan

Upon demand of the People, a defendant must serve the People, and file with the court, a notice of alibi if…

People v. Mohan

Upon demand of the People, a defendant must serve the People, and file with the court, a notice of alibi if…