1 No. 60 SSM 5
The People &c.,
Respondent,
v.
Juan Orengo,
Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
2002 NY Int. 32
March 21, 2002
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Submitted by Natalie Rea, for appellant.
Submitted by Victor Barall, for respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The Appellate
Division properly determined that the sentencing court did not base
its determination upon inaccurate information. Here, the record
indicates that the sentencing court did not consider any of the
prosecutor's inaccurate assertions in its sentencing determination,
but predicated that sentence on the nature and details of the
particular crime of which defendant was convicted. Moreover, the
Appellate Division correctly determined that, as a matter of law,
defendant's counsel was not ineffective (see People v Benevento, ,
91 NY2d 708, 713-714 (1998)).
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules, order
affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine,
Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt and Graffeo concur.
Decided March 21, 2002
SNIPPETS:
The People &c., Respondent, v. Juan Orengo, Appellant.
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
Submitted by Natalie Rea, for appellant.
Submitted by Victor Barall, for respondent.
The Appellate Division properly determined that the sentencing court did not base its
Here, the record indicates that the sentencing court did not consider any of the prosecutor's
Moreover, the Appellate Division correctly determined that, as a matter of law, defendant's
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules, order affirmed, in a
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt and Graffeo concur.
|
