Opinion
February 26, 1996
Appeal from the County Court, Orange County (Pano Z. Patsalos, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this case, when viewed in their totality at the time of the representation, indicate that defense counsel provided the defendant with meaningful representation (see, People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137). When, as in this case, a defendant receives an advantageous plea agreement and the record does not cast doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel, the defendant is deemed to have been furnished with meaningful representation (see, People v. Boodhoo, 191 A.D.2d 448). Moreover, it is well settled that the failure to make a particular motion does not, by itself, establish the ineffectiveness of counsel. To prevail, a defendant must demonstrate the absence of a strategic or legitimate explanation for counsel's failure to make the motion (see, People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705; People v. Wells, 187 A.D.2d 745). Since the defendant failed to make such a showing, it is presumed that his counsel acted in a competent manner and exercised appropriate judgment by not making an omnibus motion (see, People v. Rivera, supra). Bracken, J.P., Miller, Joy, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.