AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. DAVID POTTER, appellant.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in failing to make a further inquiry into the circumstances surrounding his post-plea arrest is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Mackey, 77 N.Y.2d 846; People v. Scott, 275 A.D.2d 723; People v. Miles, 268 A.D.2d 489). In any event, the contention is without merit (see, People v. Outley, 80 N.Y.2d 702).

The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v. Modica, 64 N.Y.2d 828; People v. Orengo, 286 A.D.2d 344 [2d Dept., Aug. 6, 2001]; People v. Mobley, 221 A.D.2d 376).

SANTUCCI, J.P., S. MILLER, LUCIANO and SMITH, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEOPLE v. POTTER
(Nov 13, 2001)