People v. Marx
| Decision Date | 07 December 1995 |
| Citation | 634 N.Y.S.2d 810,222 A.D.2d 763 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Dennis A. MARX, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Frederick P. Korkosz, Albany, for appellant.
Robert M. Carney, District Attorney (Alfred D. Chapleau, of counsel), Schenectady, for respondent.
Before CARDONA, P.J., and MIKOLL, CASEY, YESAWICH and PETERS, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Harrigan, J.), rendered December 23, 1994, which revoked defendant's probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.
In January 1994, upon his plea of guilty, defendant was convicted of the crimes of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree and driving while intoxicated. He was fined and sentenced to a term of five years' probation. In December 1994, defendant was charged with violating the terms of his probation. Following a revocation hearing, County Court found that defendant violated his probation by not only failing to report to the Probation Department and keep it apprised of his whereabouts, but also by his conviction in June 1994 of second degree aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle. Thus, County Court revoked defendant's probation and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of 1 1/3 to 4 years.
Defendant contends that he was denied the right to effective assistance of counsel because immediately prior to the commencement of the hearing, his counsel noted to County Court that defendant had refused to accept his advice to plead guilty in order to receive a lighter sentence. Hence, defendant contends that instead of vigorously defending him, counsel was implicitly informing the court that he believed his client to be guilty.
We disagree. Counsel merely advised County Court that upon his assessment of the evidence, he recommended that defendant accept the plea offered. The record reflects that counsel afforded defendant competent representation by making timely and appropriate objections, vigorously cross-examining the prosecution's witness and asking the court for lenience in sentencing due to defendant's heart condition. Counsel's conduct demonstrated familiarity with the relevant principles of criminal law and procedure, resulting in what we find to be the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v. Noble, 209 A.D.2d 735, 736, 618 N.Y.S.2d 123, lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 1036, 623 N.Y.S.2d 192, 647 N.E.2d 464).
Defend...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hayden
...and argument on the issue of defendant's second felony offender status; and his jury instruction requests (see, People v. Marx, 222 A.D.2d 763, 764, 634 N.Y.S.2d 810). And, having reviewed all of the relevant facts and circumstances, including defendant's 25-year criminal history, the natur......
-
People v. Griffith
...closing statements on behalf of defendant and was obviously familiar with the relevant principles of criminal law (see, People v. Marx, 222 A.D.2d 763, 634 N.Y.S.2d 810). In light of the lower burden of proof with respect to probation violation proceedings (see, CPL 410.70[3]; People v. Joh......
- Robin PP, Matter of
-
People v. Hogan
...that County Court "may not conclude that defendant violated a condition of probation based exclusively on hearsay evidence" (People v Marx, 222 A.D.2d 763, 764), we find that defendant's violation here was supported by "'a residuum of competent legal evidence * * *'" (People v Styles, 175 A......