From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Phinney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 10, 1989
148 A.D.2d 969 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

March 10, 1989

Appeal from the Steuben County Court, Finnerty, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Denman, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of first degree rape and second degree burglary, defendant argues that his consent to representation by assigned counsel, notwithstanding a possible conflict of interest, was not informed. Defendant also claims that counsel's representation was ineffective and that the court erred in denying his post-trial motion for a hearing to determine whether new evidence supported an insanity defense. Each of these claims lacks merit. At the outset of the trial the court advised defendant of a possible conflict of interest and defendant's consent to assigned counsel's representation indicated defendant's awareness of the potential risks involved (see, People v. Macerola, 47 N.Y.2d 257, 263; People v. Gomberg, 38 N.Y.2d 307, 313-314). Moreover, on this record, it is evident that counsel's representation was effective and meaningful (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147). The court properly denied defendant's post-trial motion without a hearing because the information upon which the motion was based was not newly discovered and could have been produced by defendant at trial with due diligence.


Summaries of

People v. Phinney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 10, 1989
148 A.D.2d 969 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Phinney

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. STANLEY D. PHINNEY…

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

Date published: Mar 10, 1989

Citations

148 A.D.2d 969 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
539 N.Y.S.2d 205