From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 21, 2000
278 A.D.2d 154 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

December 21, 2000.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Leibovitz, J.), rendered March 31, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Mindy J. Levinson, for respondent.

Michele Hauser, for defendant-appellant.

Before: Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Rubin, JJ.


The record establishes that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-714). Although defendant asserts that his trial counsel's failure to object to various evidence constituted ineffective assistance, there was no prejudice to defendant because all of the evidence in question was admissible. Specifically, we note that the challenged evidence concerning the conduct of a codefendant who had pleaded guilty prior to defendant's trial was clearly relevant, in context, to defendant's guilt.

Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 21, 2000
278 A.D.2d 154 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

People v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. RONALD SMITH…

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

Date published: Dec 21, 2000

Citations

278 A.D.2d 154 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
718 N.Y.S.2d 321

Citing Cases

People v. Chung

The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 85). The defendant's remaining…

People v. Bierenbaum

This contention is without merit, as the Appellate Division indicated by way of dictum that the videotapes…