From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Randall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 30, 1997
239 A.D.2d 940 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

May 30, 1997

Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Lawton, Callahan and Fallon, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We conclude that County Court did not abuse its discretion in summarily denying defendant's pro se suppression motion made more than 45 days after defendant's arraignment (see, CPL 265.20[1], [3]; 710.40 [1], [2]; see, e.g., People v. Jones, 114 A.D.2d 974, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 6Z3). We further conclude that defendant received effective assistance of counsel (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147; People v. Trait, 139 A.D.2d 937, 938, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 867). Finally, defendant's sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J. — Criminal Possession Weapon, 3rd Degree.)


Summaries of

People v. Randall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 30, 1997
239 A.D.2d 940 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

People v. Randall

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MICHAEL RANDALL…

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

Date published: May 30, 1997

Citations

239 A.D.2d 940 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
661 N.Y.S.2d 810

Citing Cases

People v. McQueen

County Court did not abuse its discretion in summarily denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence as…

People v. Jenkins

In any event, the prosecutor's comments, to the extent that they were improper and that the harm resulting…