People v. Jurjens
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Roberts (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- People v. Herman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- WALKER, JR., QUINCEY L., PEOPLE v (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- People v. Walker (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- People v. Walker (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- SNYDER, WALTER, PEOPLE v (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- People v. Snyder (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- People v. Snyder (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- People v. Salsbery (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- People v. Mastowski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- People v. Caito (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- People v. Rogers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- People v. Coleman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- People v. Bueno (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—Appeal from a judgment of Ontario County Court (Doran, J.), entered
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of two counts of driving while intoxicated as a felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2], [3]; § 1193 [1] [c]). Defendant contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because defense counsel failed to move for inspection of the grand jury minutes, for a probable cause hearing, and for a Huntley hearing. We disagree. The failure to make pretrial motions does not, by itself, constitute ineffective assistance of counsel (see, People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709; People v Willis, 261 AD2d 946, lv denied 93 NY2d 1029). Rather, a defendant must “demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel’s failure to request a particular hearing” (People v Rivera, supra at 709), and defendant failed to do so here (see, People v Waliyuddin, 286 AD2d 915; People v Workman, 277 AD2d 1029, 1031-1032, lv denied 96 NY2d 764; People v Willis, supra). The evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this case, viewed in totality and as of the time of representation, establish that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147; People v Valentin, 212 AD2d 1052, lv denied 85 NY2d 915).
The verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495; People v Marek, 284 AD2d 994; People v Rutledge, 277 AD2d 960, 961, lv denied 96 NY2d 738). Furthermore, “[t]he fact that defendant was sentenced to a term of incarceration greater than that offered as part of a pretrial plea offer does not render the sentence unduly harsh” (People v Maddox, 272 AD2d 884, 885, lv denied 95 NY2d 867; see, People v Stephens, 219 AD2d 854, 855, lv denied 87 NY2d 851). Contrary to the contention of defendant, there is no indication that the sentence imposed was “inflicted as punishment for insisting upon a trial” (People v Walker, 234 AD2d 962, 964, lv denied 89 NY2d 1042). The sentence is not otherwise unduly harsh or severe. Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.