From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Cummings

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 24, 2000
269 A.D.2d 541 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted January 11, 2000

February 24, 2000

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), rendered October 13, 1998, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of marihuana in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Michelle Mogal of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Roseann B. MacKechnie, Michael Gore, and Stephen J. Cirami of counsel), for respondent.

DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO and SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel because counsel voluntarily introduced information regarding the defendant's prior arrests during the trial and subsequently rejected the trial court's proposal for a limiting jury instruction. However, the record reveals that counsel introduced the defendant's prior arrests during the cross-examination of one of the arresting officers to further a theory of harassment and police conspiracy against the defendant, noting that the defendant was arrested by the testifying officer on at least four occasions, but was never convicted. The decision to reject the trial court's limiting instruction, which had been tailored by the People, was a trial strategy which, though unsuccessful, did not indicate ineffective assistance of counsel (see, People v. Gatto, 146 A.D.2d 643 ; see also, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137 ).

Furthermore, counsel's efforts, including timely objections, his application to preclude a witness that was not on the People's witness list from testifying, his detailed cross examination of the People's witnesses, and the presentation of a viable defense in a case where the evidence against the defendant was substantial, sufficed to constitute "meaningful representation" (People v. Lockhart, 167 A.D.2d 427 ; see, People v. Baldi, supra).


Summaries of

People v. Cummings

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 24, 2000
269 A.D.2d 541 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

People v. Cummings

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. KEN CUMMINGS, appellant. (Ind. No…

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

Date published: Feb 24, 2000

Citations

269 A.D.2d 541 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
703 N.Y.S.2d 503

Citing Cases

People v. Scott

The decision not to request an alibi charge was reasonable in view of the weakness of the defendant's alleged…

People v. Mascorro

Accordingly, it is not a material stage of the trial at which the defendant has a right to be present (see,…