Opinion
12662 Ind. No. 3323/17 Case No. 2018-5464
12-17-2020
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Cecil RICHARDSON, Defendant–Appellant.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Barbara Zolot of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Jonathan Cantarero of counsel), for respondent.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Barbara Zolot of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Jonathan Cantarero of counsel), for respondent.
Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Kern, Oing, Moulton, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa C. Jackson, J.), rendered May 17, 2018, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of two counts of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of two to four years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's claim that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance by failing to wait for the court to render its posthearing decision on defendant's suppression motion before defendant pleaded guilty is unreviewable on direct appeal because it involves matters not fully reflected in or explained by the record (see People v. Rivera , 71 N.Y.2d 705, 709, 530 N.Y.S.2d 52, 525 N.E.2d 698 [1988] ; People v. Powell , 185 A.D.3d 495, 495–96, 125 N.Y.S.3d 550 [1st Dept. 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1096, 131 N.Y.S.3d 311, 155 N.E.3d 804 [2020] ). These matters outside the record include plea bargaining considerations with particular reference to matters of timing, counsel's evaluation of the likelihood of success on the motion, and defendant's personal input into accepting the lenient disposition offered by the court over the People's objection.
To the extent the existing record permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards (see People v. Benevento , 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713–714, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 [1998] ; Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 [1984] ). The record fails to establish that waiting for the court to render its decision would have led to the suppression of any evidence, either by the hearing court or on appeal.