From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hamilton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 3, 1999
262 A.D.2d 34 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

June 3, 1999.

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (William Leibovitz, J.).


On the existing record, we find that defendant received meaningful representation ( see, People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708). Defendant has not shown that he was prejudiced by his counsel's untimely filing of motions for severance of the robbery counts and suppression of physical evidence, because the record suggests that neither motion would have been successful.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Mazzarelli, Rubin, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Hamilton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 3, 1999
262 A.D.2d 34 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

People v. Hamilton

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CHARLES HAMILTON…

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

Date published: Jun 3, 1999

Citations

262 A.D.2d 34 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
690 N.Y.S.2d 436

Citing Cases

People v. Brown

Defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel at the suppression hearing. Since there is no…