From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Sandoval

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jul 13, 2016
141 A.D.3d 621 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

07-13-2016

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Julio SANDOVAL, appellant.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, NY (A. Alexander Donn of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Ellen C. Abbot, and Jonathan V. Brewer of counsel), for respondent.


Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, NY (A. Alexander Donn of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Ellen C. Abbot, and Jonathan V. Brewer of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Knopf, J.), rendered April 23, 2012, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, he received the effective assistance of counsel under both the state standard (see People v. Wragg, 26 N.Y.3d 403, 409, 23 N.Y.S.3d 600, 44 N.E.3d 898 ; People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 ) and the federal standard (see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 ). There existed a legitimate, strategic reason for defense counsel's decision to agree to a collective, rather than individual, inquiry of prospective jurors who heard a potentially prejudicial comment made by another prospective juror. In any event, viewing counsel's performance in its totality, any error counsel made in connection with the prospective juror's comment or in failing to object to the Supreme Court's instructions in that regard did not deprive the defendant of meaningful representation under the state standard (see People v. Blake, 24 N.Y.3d 78, 81, 996 N.Y.S.2d 585, 21 N.E.3d 214 ; People v. Summerville, 138 A.D.3d 897, 29 N.Y.S.3d 487 ; People v. Diallo, 132 A.D.3d 1010, 1010–1011, 18 N.Y.S.3d 440 ), and applying the federal standard, there was no reasonable probability that any error affected the outcome of the case (see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 691–692, 104 S.Ct. 2052 ).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).

MASTRO, J.P., AUSTIN, SGROI and MALTESE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Sandoval

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jul 13, 2016
141 A.D.3d 621 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

People v. Sandoval

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Julio SANDOVAL, appellant.

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

Date published: Jul 13, 2016

Citations

141 A.D.3d 621 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 5512
34 N.Y.S.3d 898

Citing Cases

People v. Sandoval

Judge: Decision Reported Below: 2d Dept: 141 AD3d 621 (Queens)…