From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 16, 1990
159 A.D.2d 1011 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

March 16, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Lowery, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defense counsel's request for an adjournment since counsel had ample time to prepare for trial and failed to establish any prejudice (see, Matter of Anthony M., 63 N.Y.2d 270, 283-284; People v Singleton, 41 N.Y.2d 402, 405). Moreover, from our review of the record, we find that defendant was provided meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137). Disagreement over trial strategy or tactics does not render counsel's assistance ineffective (see, People v Montana, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 708). We note that none of the alleged improprieties in the prosecutor's summation was preserved for appellate review. Defendant was properly sentenced as a second violent felony offender (see, Penal Law § 70.04 [b] [i]; People v Morse, 62 N.Y.2d 205, 213; People v Gonzalez, 61 N.Y.2d 586, 589; cf., People v Muniz, 74 N.Y.2d 464).


Summaries of

People v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 16, 1990
159 A.D.2d 1011 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WILLIE E. BROWN…

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

Date published: Mar 16, 1990

Citations

159 A.D.2d 1011 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Citing Cases

People v. Queeglay

We reject the contention that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying defendant's motion for an…

People v. Cruz

Furthermore, the narrow exception to the preservation requirement does not apply (seePeople v. Lopez , 71…