From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Sumter

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 14, 2016
145 A.D.3d 803 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

12-14-2016

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Nathaniel SUMTER, appellant.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, NY (Anders Nelson of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Anastasia Spanakos, and Kayonia L. Whetstone of counsel), for respondent.


Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, NY (Anders Nelson of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Anastasia Spanakos, and Kayonia L. Whetstone of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Griffin, J.), rendered March 18, 2015, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Paynter, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, his attorney was not ineffective for the single alleged error of declining to make an oral argument at the suppression hearing (cf. People v. Clermont, 22 N.Y.3d 931, 933, 977 N.Y.S.2d 704, 999 N.E.2d 1149 ; People v. Johnson, 37 A.D.3d 363, 363–364, 830 N.Y.S.2d 546 ). The record indicates that his attorney's representation was meaningful and competent throughout the hearing and trial, including cross-examination of witnesses that focused on the identification issue (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 ). Moreover, an attorney is not ineffective for failing to make an argument that, as here, has little or no chance of success (see People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 152, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).

RIVERA, J.P., CHAMBERS, ROMAN and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Sumter

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 14, 2016
145 A.D.3d 803 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

People v. Sumter

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Nathaniel SUMTER, appellant.

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

Date published: Dec 14, 2016

Citations

145 A.D.3d 803 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
41 N.Y.S.3d 913
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 8379

Citing Cases

People v. Sumter

Judge: Decision Reported Below: 2d Dept: 145 AD3d 803 (Queens)…

People v. Defilippis

While we do not countenance defense counsel's admitted failure to review the presentence report, under the…