You are here: / / DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT SENTENCING;...
,

DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT SENTENCING; DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE CASE OR THE DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the conviction, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel at sentencing. Counsel was not familiar with the case of the defendant’s background:

… [T]he defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel at sentencing. A defendant is ” entitled to an opportunity to be represented by counsel sufficiently familiar with the case and the defendant’s background to make an effective presentation on the question of sentence'” … . Here, the defendant’s counsel at sentencing made no substantive arguments on the defendant’s behalf, and the record demonstrates that counsel had no meaningful knowledge of the case or of the defendant’s background. People v Jones, 2020 NY Slip Op 01640, Second Dept 3-11-20

 

You might also like
Labor Law 200 Action Is Not Based Upon Supervision or Control of Plaintiff’s Work, But Rather on the Property Owner’s Creation or Failure to Remedy a Dangerous Condition
WHERE AN EMPLOYEE ACTS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT, ABSENT A VALID CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, AN EMPLOYER CANNOT BE SUED FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION.
Supreme Court Properly Denied a Motion to Approve a Settlement of a Proposed Non-Opt-Out Class Action—Shareholders Who Objected to the Settlement Were Entitled to Opt Out to Preserve Their Damages Claims
SENDING THE 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE TO THE TWO BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE VIOLATED RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATION THAT THE WATER MAIN ON DEFENDANTS’ NEIGHBORING PROPERTY BROKE CAUSING WATER TO ENTER PLAINTIFFS’ BASEMENT STATED A NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE RES-IPSA-LOQUITUR THEORY (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether County Had Constructive Notice of Pothole Which Injured Bicyclist
Question of Fact About Whether Skater Assumed the Risk of a Collision with a Skating Guard Who May Have Acted Recklessly
PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES IN THIS FOIL PROCEEDING; THE RESPONDENTS DID NOT PROVIDE THE BULK OF THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS UNTIL AFTER THE ARTICLE 78 WAS BROUGHT; RESPONDENTS DID NOT PRESENT AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO INITIALLY DISCLOSE THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE JURY WAS NOT PROPERLY INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, INDICTMENT... DEFENDANT’S PARTICIPATION IN A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE DID NOT WAIVE HIS...