From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Mills

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct 7, 2015
132 A.D.3d 698 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

2015-10-7

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Theodore MILLS, appellant.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Rahshanda Sibley of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Laura T. Ross of counsel), for respondent.


Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Rahshanda Sibley of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Laura T. Ross of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Margulis, J.), rendered March 1, 2012, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the third degree, and petit larceny, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

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 prove the defendant's guilt of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the third degree, and petit larceny beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( seeCPL 470.15[5]; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053; 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 of ineffective 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; see People v. Taylor, 98 A.D.3d 593, 594, 949 N.Y.S.2d 209, affd. sub nom. People v. Heidgen, 22 N.Y.3d 259, 980 N.Y.S.2d 320). 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. Taylor, 98 A.D.3d at 594, 949 N.Y.S.2d 209; People v. Delancey, 94 A.D.3d 1015, 942 N.Y.S.2d 170; People v. Maxwell, 89 A.D.3d at 1109, 933 N.Y.S.2d 386). LEVENTHAL, J.P., CHAMBERS, AUSTIN and MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Mills

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct 7, 2015
132 A.D.3d 698 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

People v. Mills

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Theodore MILLS, appellant.

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

Date published: Oct 7, 2015

Citations

132 A.D.3d 698 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 7294
17 N.Y.S.3d 318

Citing Cases

People v. Lang

The defendant's contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that he was deprived of the effective…