From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Delancey

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Apr 17, 2012
94 A.D.3d 1015 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-04-17

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Roger DELANCEY, appellant.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (William Kastin of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Merri Turk Lasky of counsel), for respondent.


Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (William Kastin of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Merri Turk Lasky of counsel), for respondent.

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, ARIEL E. BELEN, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered June 11, 2009, convicting him of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the testimony regarding two prior disputes he had with one of the victims, one of which occurred several weeks prior to the subject incident, and the other of which occurred only hours before the subject incident, was relevant to his motive and provided background information on the nature of the relationship between the defendant and the victims, and the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudice to the defendant ( see People v. Dorm, 12 N.Y.3d 16, 19, 874 N.Y.S.2d 866, 903 N.E.2d 263; People v. Cook, 93 N.Y.2d 840, 688 N.Y.S.2d 89, 710 N.E.2d 654; People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 242, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808; People v. Gamble, 72 A.D.3d 544, 546, 899 N.Y.S.2d 207, affd. 18 N.Y.3d 386, 941 N.Y.S.2d 1, 964 N.E.2d 372; People v. Marji, 43 A.D.3d 961, 841 N.Y.S.2d 361; People v. Williams, 27 A.D.3d 673, 811 N.Y.S.2d 124). Moreover, the Supreme Court's cautionary instructions limited any potential prejudice to the defendant ( see People v. Torres, 78 A.D.3d 866, 910 N.Y.S.2d 381; People v. Marji, 43 A.D.3d 961, 841 N.Y.S.2d 361; People v. Ortiz, 273 A.D.2d 482, 710 N.Y.S.2d 254).

The contentions raised in the defendant's pro se supplemental brief that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury's verdict on the counts of murder in the second degree and attempted murder in the second degree are unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 491–492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt on those counts beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15[5]; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053, cert. denied 542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).

The defendant's claim that he was deprived of the constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel is based, in part, on matter appearing on the record and, in part, on matter outside the record, and thus constitutes a “ ‘mixed claim’ ” of ineffective assistance ( People v. Maxwell, 89 A.D.3d 1108, 1109, 933 N.Y.S.2d 386, quoting People v. Evans, 16 N.Y.3d 571, 575 n. 2, 925 N.Y.S.2d 366, 949 N.E.2d 457, cert. denied ––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 325, 181 L.Ed.2d 201). In this case, it is not evident from the matter appearing on the record that the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel ( cf. People v. Crump, 53 N.Y.2d 824, 440 N.Y.S.2d 170, 422 N.E.2d 815; People v. Brown, 45 N.Y.2d 852, 410 N.Y.S.2d 287, 382 N.E.2d 1149). Since the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance cannot be resolved without reference to matter outside the record, a CPL 440.10 proceeding is the appropriate forum for reviewing the claim in its entirety ( see People v. Freeman, 93 A.D.3d 805, 940 N.Y.S.2d 314; People v. Maxwell, 89 A.D.3d at 1109, 933 N.Y.S.2d 386; People v. Rohlehr, 87 A.D.3d 603, 604, 927 N.Y.S.2d 919).

The remaining contentions raised in the defendant's pro se supplemental brief are unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, are without merit.


Summaries of

People v. Delancey

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Apr 17, 2012
94 A.D.3d 1015 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

People v. Delancey

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Roger DELANCEY, appellant.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Apr 17, 2012

Citations

94 A.D.3d 1015 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
942 N.Y.S.2d 170
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 2892

Citing Cases

People v. Reddick

05[2]; People v. Rios, 96 A.D.3d 978, 978, 946 N.Y.S.2d 499;People v. Torres, 96 A.D.3d 881, 882, 946…

People v. Addison

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in admitting…