From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Jurjens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 1, 2002
291 A.D.2d 839 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

KA 01-00077

February 1, 2002.

Appeal from a judgment of Ontario County Court (Doran, J.), entered September 29, 2000, convicting defendant after a jury trial of felony driving while intoxicated (two counts).

SCOTT P. FALVEY, CANANDAIGUA, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

R. MICHAEL TANTILLO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (BRIAN D. DENNIS OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., HAYES, HURLBUTT, KEHOE, AND BURNS, JJ.


It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of two counts of driving while intoxicated as a felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192, [3]; § 1193 [1] [c]). Defendant contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because defense counsel failed to move for inspection of the Grand Jury minutes, for a probable cause hearing, and for a Huntley hearing. We disagree. The failure to make pretrial motions does not, by itself, constitute ineffective assistance of counsel ( see, People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 709; People v. Willis, 261 A.D.2d 946, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 1029). Rather, a defendant must "demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel's failure to request a particular hearing" ( People v. Rivera, supra, at 709), and defendant failed to do so here ( see, People v. Waliyuddin, 286 A.D.2d 915; People v. Workman, 277 A.D.2d 1029, 1031-1032, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 764; People v. Willis, supra). The evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this case, viewed in totality and as of the time of representation, establish that defendant received meaningful representation ( see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147; People v. Valentin, 212 A.D.2d 1052, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 915).

The verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495; People v. Marek, 284 A.D.2d 994; People v. Rutledge, 277 A.D.2d 960, 961, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 738). Furthermore, "[t]he fact that defendant was sentenced to a term of incarceration greater than that offered as part of a pretrial plea offer does not render the sentence unduly harsh" ( People v. Maddox, 272 A.D.2d 884, 885, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 867; see, People v. Stephens, 219 A.D.2d 854, 855, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 851). Contrary to the contention of defendant, there is no indication that the sentence imposed was "inflicted as punishment for insisting upon a trial" ( People v. Walker, 234 A.D.2d 962, 964, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1042). The sentence is not otherwise unduly harsh or severe.


Summaries of

People v. Jurjens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 1, 2002
291 A.D.2d 839 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Jurjens

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. RICHARD JURJENS…

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

Date published: Feb 1, 2002

Citations

291 A.D.2d 839 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
737 N.Y.S.2d 891

Citing Cases

People v. Walker

We reject defendant's contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Defendant failed to show…

People v. Snyder

Thus, defendant did not establish that defense counsel was ineffective in failing to make such a motion ( see…