New York Court of Appeals, 1982

People v. Rose

New York Court of Appeals · Decided October 12, 1982

57 N.Y.2d 837; 442 N.E.2d 57; 455 N.Y.S.2d 760; 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3738

Cases that cite this one

17 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Alexander (New York Supreme Court 1987)
People v. West (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
The People v. Willie L. Wragg (N.Y. 2015)
People v. Valencia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
People v. Haas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
People v. Collins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
People v. Vanterpool (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
People v. Garcia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
People v. Pollak (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
People v. Lawton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
People v. Ali (New York Supreme Court 1987)
People v. Glover (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
People v. Flores (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
People v. Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
People v. Tune (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
People v. Peterson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
People v. Murray (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. The charges stemmed from the sale of cocaine to an undercover State Police officer. Defendant asserts that he was denied effective assistance of counsel.

*839This contention is unsupported by the record. Defense counsel’s reliance on the testimony of a witness whose credibility was subsequently impeached on cross-examination may have been an inadvisable trial tactic, but it did not constitute ineffective assistance. Similarly, it cannot be said as a matter of law that defense counsel’s failure to explore the possibility of plea bargaining was error. When viewed in its totality, the attorney’s performance at trial and sentencing did not deprive defendant of “meaningful representation” (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur; Judge Gabrielli taking no part.

Orders affirmed in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.