Opinion
September 30, 1997
Appeal from Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J.
Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Wisner, Balio and Fallon, JJ.
Defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel only as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and not under the State Constitution ( see, People v. Claudio, 83 N.Y.2d 76, 79-80, rearg dismissed 88 N.Y.2d 1007), based upon various omissions on the part of defense counsel. Defendant failed to show that "counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as * * * guaranteed * * * by the Sixth Amendment" and failed to show "that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense" ( Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, reh denied 467 U.S. 1267). Even if the State constitutional standard were to be applied, the result would be no different. Here, "`the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of [this] case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation,'" establish that defendant received meaningful representation ( People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 708, quoting People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146-147).
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that his statement to police should have been suppressed as the product of police deception and trickery ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Dunn, 85 N.Y.2d 956). In any event, County Court properly denied the motion to suppress because defendant was not in custody when he made the statement ( see, People v. Yukl, 26 N.Y.2d 586, mot to amend remittitur denied 26 N.Y.2d 845, rearg denied 26 N.Y.2d 883, cert denied 400 U.S. 851).