From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Charles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 20, 2003
309 A.D.2d 873 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

1999-04736

Submitted September 18, 2003.

October 20, 2003.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Kowtna, J.), rendered May 14, 1999, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree (two counts), assault in the first degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Scott Brettschneider, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Randall D. Unger of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Denis Dillon, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Robert A. Schwartz and Douglas Noll of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, SANDRA L. TOWNES, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. Viewing the record as a whole, the defendant received meaningful representation ( see People v. Henry, 95 N.Y.2d 563; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137). The defense counsel presented a reasonable defense, interposed appropriate objections, effectively cross-examined witnesses, and delivered a cogent summation ( see People v. Mejias, 278 A.D.2d 249). Unsuccessful trial strategies and tactics do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel ( see People v. Henry, supra; People v. Jackson, 52 N.Y.2d 1027).

The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in admitting testimony that he threatened a witness is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. Tevaha, 84 N.Y.2d 879) and, in any event, is without merit ( see People v. De La Cruz, 227 A.D.2d 241; People v. Leitzsey, 173 A.D.2d 488).

Contrary to the defendant's contention raised in his supplemental pro se brief, the County Court properly ordered restitution in the amount of the complainants' medical expenses without conducting a hearing. A court must conduct a hearing on the issue of restitution only "[i]f the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support such finding [of the actual out-of-pocket loss] or upon request by the defendant" (Penal Law § 60.27). Here, the defendant did not request a hearing and there was sufficient support in the record for the court's determination of the amount of the complainants' out-of-pocket losses ( see People v. Kim, 91 N.Y.2d 407; People v. Stubbs, 281 A.D.2d 498).

The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

ALTMAN, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, TOWNES and MASTRO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Charles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 20, 2003
309 A.D.2d 873 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

People v. Charles

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. RAJIN CHARLES, appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 20, 2003

Citations

309 A.D.2d 873 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
766 N.Y.S.2d 42

Citing Cases

Charles v. Fischer

The trial court also ordered the petitioner to pay restitution in the amount of $26,072.56. On October 20,…

People v. Ward

If the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support such finding or upon request by the defendant,…