Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Hamm

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT


December 23, 2008

THE PEOPLE, ETC., RESPONDENT,
v.
BRUCE D. HAMM, APPELLANT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (De Rosa, J.), rendered August 8, 2007, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

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.

STEVEN W. FISHER, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, EDWARD D. CARNI and CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JJ.

(Ind. No. 07-00320)

DECISION & ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant argues "that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in that counsel permitted him to plead guilty and [to] waive his right to appeal without filing a motion to dismiss the indictment, in the interest of justice, pursuant to People v Clayton (41 AD2d 204)." He argues, "defense counsel had no strategic or legitimate explanation for [the] failure [to file a Clayton motion]."

Contrary to this contention, the record on appeal contains no indication that a Clayton motion (see CPL 210.40) would have had the slightest chance of success, and thus the defendant's former attorney cannot be said to have been ineffective based only on his failure to make such a motion. "There can be no denial of effective assistance of... counsel arising from counsel's failure to make a motion or argument that had little or no chance of success'" (People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152, quoting People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277, 287).

In light of the defendant's waiver of his right to appeal, which was, by all appearances, completely voluntary, the defendant's argument concerning the alleged excessiveness of his sentence is not properly before this Court (see People v Finn, 56 AD3d 490; People v Jackson, 56 AD3d 492; People v Gallo, 54 AD3d 964).

FISHER, J.P., FLORIO, CARNI and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.

20081223

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.