From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Sneed

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 21, 1986
116 A.D.2d 676 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

January 21, 1986

Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Delin, J.).


Judgment affirmed.

Defendant's arrest history and his admitted involvement in a robbery in which a firearm was used provided a sound basis for the trial court's decision to deny him treatment as a youthful offender (see, People v Raphael, 109 A.D.2d 899). While certain of defense counsel's remarks at the sentencing hearing might, from defendant's viewpoint, have been better left unsaid, it is evident that they had no impact upon the sentence imposed, which was the one for which counsel had effectively bargained. Under the circumstances, it cannot reasonably be contended that counsel's performance resulted in actual and substantial disadvantage to the defense (see, People v Adams, 110 A.D.2d 772, 773), or that defendant was denied meaningful representation (see, People v Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796; People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146). Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Sneed

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 21, 1986
116 A.D.2d 676 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

People v. Sneed

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CLIFTON SNEED…

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

Date published: Jan 21, 1986

Citations

116 A.D.2d 676 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

Sobenis v. Harridge House Assocs. of 1984, 225 E. 57th St. Owners Corp.

--------Accordingly, as plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any ground for ignoring the impact of the Second…

People v. Moralez

The defendant's contention that the sentencing court should have granted him youthful offender status is…