Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jorge GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered February 8, 1995, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about March 26, 1999, which denied defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction, unanimously affirmed.
Although defendant's attorney simultaneously represented, upon totally unrelated matters, two of the codefendants in the instant case, defendant has not established a significant possibility of a conflict of interest bearing a substantial relationship to or operating on the conduct of the defense (see, People v. Recupero, 73 N.Y.2d 877, 879, 538 N.Y.S.2d 234, 535 N.E.2d 287). The disparate treatment received by the co-defendants in the instant matter is explained by their disparate culpability (id.), in that it was defendant who was driving the vehicle and who was observed placing an object that turned out to be a pistol inside the console. There is no reason to believe that the disposition of the instant case, wherein defendant appropriately accepted responsibility for his possession of the pistol, would have been any different had his attorney not represented the codefendants on unrelated cases.
Defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to appeal, including the right to appeal from the suppression ruling. Any alleged deficiency in counsel's off-the-record explanation of the waiver was cured by the court's own detailed explanation, which defendant stated he understood (see, People v. Moissett, 76 N.Y.2d 909, 563 N.Y.S.2d 43, 564 N.E.2d 653).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: June 22, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)