From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rumble

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 5, 1992
184 A.D.2d 1040 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

June 5, 1992

Appeal from the Lewis County Court, Merrell, J.

Present — Denman, P.J., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Boehm, JJ.


Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: The record, viewed in totality, demonstrates that counsel significantly neglected his client's case, thereby depriving defendant of meaningful representation (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; People v. Trait, 139 A.D.2d 937, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 867). Although there is no requirement that counsel's conduct be free from error (People v. Trait, supra), a defendant is entitled to "assistance by an attorney who has taken the time to review and prepare both the law and the facts relevant to the defense * * * and who is familiar with, and able to employ at trial basic principles of criminal law and procedure" (People v. Droz, 39 N.Y.2d 457, 462). Defense counsel failed to seek a Huntley hearing despite the fact that defendant's statement, made before he was given Miranda warnings, was the only evidence that he had been driving; failed to move for a Sandoval ruling; failed to make court appearances on several occasions; failed to obtain documents from the State Police to support his defense that the breathalyzer test was defective; and made inflammatory comments to the jury to the effect that no policemen are capable of telling the truth on the witness stand.


Summaries of

People v. Rumble

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 5, 1992
184 A.D.2d 1040 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Rumble

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. REN L. RUMBLE…

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

Date published: Jun 5, 1992

Citations

184 A.D.2d 1040 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
584 N.Y.S.2d 701