From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Williams

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Feb 3, 2016
136 A.D.3d 686 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

02-03-2016

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Danny WILLIAMS, appellant.

Edelstein & Grossman, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan I. Edelstein and Robert M. Grossman of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Trail, and John F. McGoldrick of counsel), for respondent.


Edelstein & Grossman, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan I. Edelstein and Robert M. Grossman of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Trail, and John F. McGoldrick of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lasak, J.), rendered February 29, 2012, convicting him of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree, and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to show that his trial counsel's tactics, which included eliciting testimony that the defendant was identified in a photo array by a victim, lacked a legitimate strategic purpose (see People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 152, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213 ; People v. Trovato, 68 A.D.3d 1023, 1024, 891 N.Y.S.2d 453 ; People v. Pennington, 27 A.D.3d 269, 270, 811 N.Y.S.2d 36 ; People v. Taylor, 300 A.D.2d 746, 748, 751 N.Y.S.2d 662 ). "The fact that trial counsel's tactics were unsuccessful does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel" (People v. Trovato, 68 A.D.3d at 1024, 891 N.Y.S.2d 453 ; see People v. Henry, 95 N.Y.2d 563, 565, 721 N.Y.S.2d 577, 744 N.E.2d 112 ). Viewing the record as a whole, we find that the defendant received meaningful representation (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713–714, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 ; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400 ).

The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court considered improper factors in imposing sentence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2] ; People v. Texidor, 123 A.D.3d 746, 747, 996 N.Y.S.2d 715 ; People v. Garson, 69 A.D.3d 650, 652, 892 N.Y.S.2d 511 ). In any event, the contention is without merit. Moreover, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).

DILLON, J.P., HALL, ROMAN and DUFFY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Williams

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Feb 3, 2016
136 A.D.3d 686 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

People v. Williams

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Danny WILLIAMS, appellant.

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

Date published: Feb 3, 2016

Citations

136 A.D.3d 686 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
136 A.D.3d 686
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 693

Citing Cases

People v. Williams

Judge: Decision Reported Below: 2d Dept: 136 AD3d 686 (Queens)…

People v. Thomas

son, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's…