Opinion
2015-04-15
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Travis McINTOSH, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (John B. Latella of counsel), for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Ruth E. Ross, and Avshalom Yotam of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (John B. Latella of counsel), for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Ruth E. Ross, and Avshalom Yotam of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Del Giudice, J.), rendered September 16, 2013, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel, at the conclusion of a suppression hearing, withdrew his motion to suppress a showup identification and, during the trial, failed to object to the complainant's in-court identification of him as one of the men who robbed him. This contention is without merit. The evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this case, viewed in totality and as of the time of representation, reveal that trial counsel provided meaningful representation ( see People v. Stultz, 2 N.Y.3d 277, 283–284, 778 N.Y.S.2d 431, 810 N.E.2d 883; People v. Berroa, 99 N.Y.2d 134, 138, 753 N.Y.S.2d 12, 782 N.E.2d 1148; People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400). The defendant failed to demonstrate that his counsel, without “reasonable explanation,” failed to raise a “clear-cut and completely dispositive” issue (People v. Turner, 5 N.Y.3d 476, 481, 806 N.Y.S.2d 154, 840 N.E.2d 123; see People v. Howard, 22 N.Y.3d 388, 400, 981 N.Y.S.2d 310; People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d at 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584).