From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 26, 1996
230 A.D.2d 925 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

August 26, 1996


Appeal by the defendant (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.), rendered January 10, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) by permission, from an order of the same court, entered March 22, 1995, which denied his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction.

Ordered that the judgment and order are affirmed.

The defendant contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The question is whether, viewed in the totality, the defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see, People v Ellis, 81 N.Y.2d 854). Ineffective assistance of counsel may not be premised solely upon an unsuccessful trial strategy by defense counsel ( see, People v Burks, 198 A.D.2d 426). While the defense counsel's decision to agree to the admission of certain photographs of the defendant in order to argue misidentification was not a successful strategy, the defense counsel's assistance was not constitutionally ineffective (see, People v Benn, 68 N.Y.2d 941).

The defendant's argument that the prosecution committed reversible error by failing to timely disclose certain exculpatory material is not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Jeffries, 125 A.D.2d 412). In any event, any untimely disclosure of exculpatory material was not reversible error as the defendant was afforded an appropriate remedy at trial (see, People v Cortijo, 70 N.Y.2d 868; People v Lussier, 205 A.D.2d 910).

Furthermore, the defendant's motion to vacate the judgment was properly denied (see, CPL 190.50 [c]; 440.10 [2] [b]).

The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) or without merit (see, People v Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234). O'Brien, J.P., Thompson, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 26, 1996
230 A.D.2d 925 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

People v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RONALD SMITH, Appellant

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

Date published: Aug 26, 1996

Citations

230 A.D.2d 925 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
647 N.Y.S.2d 16

Citing Cases

People v. McKay

In determining whether a defendant has been afforded meaningful representation, courts should not confuse…

People v. Cruz

["Losing trial tactics or strategy . . . do not rise to the level of ineffectiveness"]; People v. Washington,…