People v. Terrell

17 Citing cases

  1. People v. Hassan

    172 A.D.3d 744 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)   Cited 8 times

    Moreover, the court, which had ample opportunity to observe the defendant's behavior and demeanor, had a sound basis for determining that the defendant's behavior was more indicative of an attempt by him to impede the progress of the trial than genuine mental incompetency (seePeople v. Wyche, 21 A.D.3d 281, 284, 800 N.Y.S.2d 542 ; People v. Chandler, 224 A.D.2d 992, 993, 637 N.Y.S.2d 830 ). Additionally, the defendant was not deprived of his right to the effective assistance of counsel based on his counsel's failure to request a competency hearing (seePeople v. Shaffer, 81 A.D.3d 989, 990, 917 N.Y.S.2d 267 ; People v. Terrell, 78 A.D.3d 865, 866, 910 N.Y.S.2d 368 ).The defendant's contention that the sentences imposed on the convictions of aggravated vehicular homicide (two counts), vehicular manslaughter in the first degree (two counts), and manslaughter in the second degree were "cruel and unusual" punishment is unpreserved for appellate review (seePeople v. Pena, 28 N.Y.3d 727, 730, 49 N.Y.S.3d 342, 71 N.E.3d 930 ) and, in any event, without merit (seePeople v. Miller, 74 A.D.3d 1097, 903 N.Y.S.2d 131 ).

  2. People v. Lopez-Miralles

    2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 6377 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

    Since the defendant opposed the People's request to charge the jury with assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05[2]) as a lesser-included offense of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [1]), the defendant waived his present contention that the Supreme Court erred in failing to submit that charge to the jury (see People v Terrell, 78 AD3d 865, 866).

  3. People v. Lopez-Miralles

    153 A.D.3d 936 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)   Cited 10 times

    Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of assault in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Daniels, 134 A.D.3d 525, 21 N.Y.S.3d 75 ; People v. Guillen, 65 A.D.3d 977, 886 N.Y.S.2d 373 ; People v. Thompson, 224 A.D.2d 646, 639 N.Y.S.2d 52 ). Since the defendant opposed the People's request to charge the jury with assault in the second degree ( Penal Law § 120.05[2] ) as a lesser-included offense of assault in the first degree ( Penal Law § 120.10[1] ), the defendant waived his present contention that the Supreme Court erred in failing to submit that charge to the jury (see People v. Terrell, 78 A.D.3d 865, 866, 910 N.Y.S.2d 368 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the testimony of a police officer regarding a conversation with an unidentified individual did not violate his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution (see U.S. Const. 6th Amend; Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 ).

  4. People v. Stricklin

    2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 5469 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

    The defendant's claim that he was deprived of his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel is based, in part, on matter appearing on the record and, in part, on matter outside the record, and, thus, constitutes a "mixed claim" of ineffective assistance (People v Maxwell, 89 AD3d 1108, 1109; see People v Evans, 16 NY3d 571, 575 n 2). In this case, it is not evident from the matter appearing on the record that the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Terrell, 78 AD3d 865, 866; People v Morris, 187 AD2d 460, 461-462; People v Eason, 160 AD2d 1018, 1019). Since the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance cannot be resolved without reference to matter outside the record, a CPL 440.10 proceeding is the appropriate forum for reviewing the claim in its entirety (see People v Freeman, 93 AD3d 805; People v Maxwell, 89 AD3d at 1109; People v Rohlehr, 87 AD3d 603, 604).

  5. People v. Stricklin

    152 A.D.3d 549 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)   Cited 2 times

    The defendant's claim that he was deprived of his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel is based, in part, on matter appearing on the record and, in part, on matter outside the record, and, thus, constitutes a "mixed claim" of ineffective assistance ( People v. Maxwell, 89 A.D.3d 1108, 1109, 933 N.Y.S.2d 386 ; see People v. Evans, 16 N.Y.3d 571, 575 n. 2, 925 N.Y.S.2d 366, 949 N.E.2d 457 ). In this case, it is not evident from the matter appearing on the record that the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v. Terrell, 78 A.D.3d 865, 866, 910 N.Y.S.2d 368 ; People v. Morris, 187 A.D.2d 460, 461–462, 590 N.Y.S.2d 104 ; People v. Eason, 160 A.D.2d 1018, 1019, 554 N.Y.S.2d 943 ). Since the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance cannot be resolved without reference to matter outside the record, a CPL 440.10 proceeding is the appropriate forum for reviewing the claim in its entirety (see People v. Freeman, 93 A.D.3d 805, 940 N.Y.S.2d 314 ; People v. Maxwell, 89 A.D.3d at 1109, 933 N.Y.S.2d 386 ; People v. Rohlehr, 87 A.D.3d 603, 604, 927 N.Y.S.2d 919 ).The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the prosecutor's questioning of a defense witness about statements made to the police by a nontestifying witness violated the defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, as he did not object on that ground (see People v. Currie, 131 A.D.3d 1265, 1266, 16 N.Y.S.3d 866 ; People v. Prince, 128 A.D.3d 987, 987, 10 N.Y.S.3d 146 ).

  6. People v. Pollidore

    123 A.D.3d 1058 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 30 times

    The defendant's contention that she was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel as a consequence of her attorney's failure to make a motion to withdraw her plea based on her postplea statements appearing in the presentence investigation report is without merit. There can be no deprivation of effective assistance of counsel arising from counsel's failure to make a motion that had little or no chance of success (see People v. Ingram, 80 A.D.3d 713, 714, 914 N.Y.S.2d 316 ; People v. Terrell, 78 A.D.3d 865, 910 N.Y.S.2d 368 ; People v. Goddard, 72 A.D.3d 839, 840, 898 N.Y.S.2d 637 ). The defendant has failed to show that defense counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different” (Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 ). Furthermore, the record reveals that the defendant received an advantageous plea, and nothing in the record casts doubt on the effectiveness of counsel (see People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 152, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213 ; People v. Henry, 95 N.Y.2d 563, 566, 721 N.Y.S.2d 577, 744 N.E.2d 112 ; People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 ).

  7. People v. Pollidore

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 9021 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

    The defendant's contention that she was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel as a consequence of her attorney's failure to make a motion to withdraw her plea based on her postplea statements appearing in the presentence investigation report is without merit. There can be no deprivation of effective assistance of counsel arising from counsel's failure to make a motion that had little or no chance of success ( see People v Ingram, 80 AD3d 713, 714; People v Terrell, 78 AD3d 865; People v Goddard, 72 AD3d 839, 840). The defendant has failed to show that defense counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that "there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different" ( Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 694). Furthermore, the record reveals that the defendant received an advantageous plea, and nothing in the record casts doubt on the effectiveness of counsel ( see People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152; People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 566; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712).

  8. People v. Deal

    115 A.D.3d 975 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 16 times

    The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel as a consequence of his attorney's failure to make a motion to withdraw his plea based on certain post-plea statements appearing in the presentence investigation report is without merit. Counsel's failure to make a motion that had little or no chance of success does not constitute ineffective assistance ( see People v. Ingram, 80 A.D.3d 713, 714, 914 N.Y.S.2d 316;People v. Terrell, 78 A.D.3d 865, 866, 910 N.Y.S.2d 368;People v. Goddard, 72 A.D.3d 839, 840, 898 N.Y.S.2d 637). The defendant's contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing and voluntary because the County Court failed to advise him, at the time of his plea, that it would issue an order of protection in favor of the complainant, is unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2] ) and, in any event, without merit ( see People v. Beckers, 94 A.D.3d 774, 941 N.Y.S.2d 515;People v. Margillo, 69 A.D.3d 655, 893 N.Y.S.2d 170;see generally People v. Nieves, 2 N.Y.3d 310, 316, 778 N.Y.S.2d 751, 811 N.E.2d 13;cf.

  9. People v. Smith

    105 A.D.3d 1065 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 9 times

    In any event, a second analysis performed at a crime laboratory in Pennsylvania confirmed that the substance sold by the defendant was heroin. The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit ( see People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 152, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213;People v. Terrell, 78 A.D.3d 865, 866, 910 N.Y.S.2d 368).

  10. People v. Terrell

    103 A.D.3d 674 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

    Tyrone O. Terrell, Wallkill, N.Y., appellant pro se. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley of counsel; Matthew C. Frankel on the brief), for respondent. Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated November 9, 2010 ( People v. Terrell, 78 A.D.3d 865, 910 N.Y.S.2d 368), affirming a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered March 18, 2009. *621ORDERED that the application is denied.