From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Cleveland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 10, 1987
132 A.D.2d 921 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

July 10, 1987

Appeal from the Cayuga County Court, Contiguglia, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Doerr, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We note that the record contains nothing to support defendant's claim that the Cayuga County District Attorney previously represented him on other burglary charges and was thus disqualified from prosecuting him on the charges alleged in this indictment. Defendant asserts in his pro se brief that he told his assigned trial counsel that the District Attorney had previously represented him but that neither trial counsel nor the court took "[n]otice of this conflict". Since the conduct which is claimed to be improper and prejudicial does not appear in the record, the issue may be raised in a proceeding under CPL article 440.

We have reviewed all other issues raised by defendant's appellate counsel and by defendant pro se, and we find them to be without merit.


Summaries of

People v. Cleveland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 10, 1987
132 A.D.2d 921 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

People v. Cleveland

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DAVID CLEVELAND…

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

Date published: Jul 10, 1987

Citations

132 A.D.2d 921 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

People v. Stanton

Further, the record supports the hearing court's finding that defendant's statement was not made as a result…

People v. Lyon

As such, its function is to inform the court of facts, not reflected in the trial record, which undermine the…