From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Checo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 14, 1997
235 A.D.2d 242 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

January 14, 1997.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin Weissberg, J.), entered on or about September 14, 1995, which denied defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 440.10, seeking to vacate a judgment of conviction, same court and Justice, rendered August 15, 1989, unanimously affirmed.

Before: Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Nardelli, JJ.


Defendant was not deprived of meaningful representation by trial counsel's failure to request a Sandoval hearing with respect to defendant's 1988 Federal conviction concerning stolen checks. Counsel had a strategic reason, albeit unsuccessful, for forgoing a Sandoval application. Counsel's tactically sound decision to forgo calling a detective to the stand for the purpose of eliciting a prior inconsistent statement, and to forgo making a meritless suppression motion, likewise do not evince ineffective assistance of counsel ( see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137). Moreover, defendant's claims that the jury would have acquitted him of murder in the second degree and convicted him, instead, of manslaughter, given his asserted affirmative defense of extreme emotional distress, had counsel called seven unnamed lay witnesses as well as a marriage counselor is entirely speculative ( People v Skinner, 224 AD2d 916).


Summaries of

People v. Checo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 14, 1997
235 A.D.2d 242 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

People v. Checo

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSE CHECO, Appellant

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

Date published: Jan 14, 1997

Citations

235 A.D.2d 242 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
652 N.Y.S.2d 515

Citing Cases

People v. Haggins

20[b]; People v. Jenkins, 146 A.D.2d 804; People v. Gomezgil, 135 A.D.2d 561). In any event, in light of the…