History
  • No items yet
midpage
People v. Robinson
151 A.D.3d 1701
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2017
|
Check Treatment
People v Robinson (2017 NY Slip Op 04650)
People v Robinson
2017 NY Slip Op 04650
Decided on June 9, 2017
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on June 9, 2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

683 KA 13-01425

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

v

JENNIFER A. ROBINSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.




TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER, JEFFREY WICKS, PLLC (JEFFREY WICKS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (STEPHEN X. O'BRIEN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.



Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Francis A. Affronti, J.), rendered April 26, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of driving while intoxicated, a class E felony.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting her following a jury trial of driving while intoxicated as a class E felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192 [3]; 1193 [1] [c] [i] [A]), defendant contends that she was denied effective assistance of counsel based upon defense counsel's failure to secure her testimony before the grand jury or to make an adequate motion to dismiss the indictment based on the alleged violation of CPL 190.50. We reject that contention. Defendant has not shown that she was prejudiced by her attorney's failure to effectuate her appearance before the grand jury or that the outcome of the grand jury proceeding would have been different if she had testified (see People v Simmons, 10 NY3d 946, 949; People v James, 92 AD3d 1207, 1208, lv denied 19 NY3d 962), nor has she shown that an adequate motion based on the violation of CPL 190.50 had any chance of success (see generally People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152). Furthermore, defendant's sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: June 9, 2017

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court



Case Details

Case Name: People v. Robinson
Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Date Published: Jun 9, 2017
Citation: 151 A.D.3d 1701
Docket Number: 683 KA 13-01425
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.