Opinion · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
People v. Yagudaev
People v. Yagudaev, 70 A.D.3d 984 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 2010)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Date
- 2010-02-16
- Topic
- general
—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gavrin, J.), rendered April 20, 2009, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant contends that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712-715 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147 [1981]). To the extent that the defendant’s claim involves matter dehors the record, it may not be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v Haynes, 39 AD3d 562, 564 [2007]). To the extent that the claim may be reviewed, defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Ennis, 11 NY3d 403, 415 [2008], cert denied 556 US —, 129 S Ct 2383 [2009]; People v Gomez, 67 AD3d 927, 927-928 [2009]; People v Carter, 44 AD3d 677, 679 [2007]).
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed People v. Yagudaev. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 3 opinions
—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gavrin, J.), rendered April 20, 2009, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712-715 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147 [1981]). To the extent that the defendant’s claim involves matter dehors the record, it may not be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v Haynes, 39 AD3d 562, 564 [2007]). To the extent that the claim may be reviewed, defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Ennis, 11 NY3d 403, 415 [2008], cert denied 556 US —, 129 S Ct 2383 [2009]; People v Gomez, 67 AD3d 927, 927-928 [2009]; People v Carter, 44 AD3d 677, 679 [2007]).
The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Covello, Balkin and Austin, JJ., concur.