From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Everette

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 6, 2000
277 A.D.2d 250 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted October 11, 2000.

November 6, 2000.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruditzky, J.), rendered May 6, 1999, convicting him of robbery in the third degree and attempted assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Robert E. Nicholson, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Diane R. Eisner of counsel Robert W. Ho on the brief), for respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, HOWARD MILLER, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant's contention that the imposition of consecutive sentences was illegal (see, Penal Law § 70.25; People v. Laureano, 87 N.Y.2d 640). Moreover, the defendant received the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v. Scalzo, 249 A.D.2d 494; People v. Hall, 224 A.D.2d 710).


Summaries of

People v. Everette

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 6, 2000
277 A.D.2d 250 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

People v. Everette

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., RESPONDENT, v. DERICK EVERETTE, APPELLANT. (IND. NO…

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

Date published: Nov 6, 2000

Citations

277 A.D.2d 250 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
715 N.Y.S.2d 644

Citing Cases

People v. Bullip

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the imposition of consecutive…