People v Shehu

Annotate this Case
People v Shehu 2014 NY Slip Op 07424 Decided on October 30, 2014 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 30, 2014
Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Saxe, Richter, Clark, JJ.
13344 3572/08

[*1] The People of the State of New York, Ind. Respondent,

v

Bello Shehu, Defendant-Appellant.



Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Michael McLaughlin of counsel), for appellant.

Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Melanie A. Sarver of counsel), for respondent.



Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Villegas, J.), rendered March 22, 2011, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of one to three years, with restitution in the amount of $26,000, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's claim that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to seek a sentence that allegedly might have avoided defendant's deportation is unreviewable on direct appeal because it involves matters not reflected in, or fully explained by, the record (see People v Rivera , 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; People v Love , 57 NY2d 998 [1982]). Accordingly, since defendant has not made a CPL 440.10 motion, the merits of the ineffectiveness claim may not be addressed on appeal. In the alternative, to the extent the existing record permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards (see People v Benevento , 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; Strickland v Washington , 466 US 668 [1984]). The record establishes that both the court and counsel advised defendant of the deportation consequences of the plea, and defendant's assertion that counsel could have obtained a disposition that might have avoided those consequences is unsupported.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: OCTOBER 30, 2014

CLERK



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.