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. THANH C. VO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39[1] ), and four counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.16[1], [12] ). We reject the contention of defendant that he was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel (see generally People v. Turner, 5 NY3d 476, 480; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147). The failure of defense counsel to request an entrapment charge was consistent with his defense strategy that defendant had not sold any drugs (see generally People v. Leigh, 232 A.D.2d 904, 906, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1036, 1037), “ ‘and defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing the absence of any legitimate explanations for’ “ that strategy (People v. Douglas, 60 AD3d 1377, 1377, lv denied 12 NY3d 914).
We reject the further contention of defendant that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the contraband recovered when the police stopped his vehicle. “Defendant has failed to establish that ‘the motion, if made, would have been successful and has failed to establish that counsel failed to provide meaningful
representation' “ (People v. Peterson, 19 AD3d 1015, 1015, lv denied 6 NY3d 851). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
Patricia L. Morgan
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: KA 08-02136
Decided: May 07, 2010
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)