People v. Belton
| Decision Date | 12 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | 834 KA 16-02156 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. DARRELL BELTON, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
KATHLEEN A. KUGLER, CONFLICT DEFENDER, LOCKPORT (JESSICA J BURGASSER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
BRIAN D. SEAMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (LAURA T. JORDAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, CURRAN, AND DEJOSEPH JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Richard C. Kloch, Sr., A.J.), rendered September 16, 2015. The judgment convicted defendant upon a jury verdict of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03 [3]), defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on counsel's alleged failures to, among other things, adequately challenge the suggestiveness of the photo array during the Wade hearing and submit a timely argument after that hearing, cross-examine witnesses, move for a trial order of dismissal, or call a witness who would disprove a jail deputy's testimony concerning defendant's statements. We reject that contention. With respect to the Wade hearing, we conclude that "even assuming, arguendo, that defense counsel could have established suggestiveness of the identification procedure, ... defense counsel could have concluded that there was an independent source for the identification of defendant" at trial by the witness who viewed the photo array (People v Dark, 122 A.D.3d 1321, 1322 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 1039 [2015], reconsideration denied 27 N.Y.3d 1068 [2016]). Specifically, the witness who viewed the photo array testified at trial that she had seen defendant once or twice per week for more than a year, knew what type of car defendant drove, and knew defendant's street name, which she provided to the 911 operator prior to viewing the photo array. In light of the witness's familiarity with defendant (see generally People v Rodriguez, 79 N.Y.2d 445, 450 [1992]; People v Gambale, 158 A.D.3d 1051, 1052-1053 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1081 [2018]), we conclude that any further attempt by defense counsel to suppress the identification of defendant by that witness through a Wade hearing would have been futile, and that defense counsel thus was not ineffective (see People v Petty, 208 A.D.2d 774, 774 [2d Dept 1994], lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 1036 [1995]; see also People v Smith, 118 A.D.3d 1492, 1493 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 953 [2015]; see generally People v Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 152 [2005]).
We reject defendant's further contention that defense counsel's failure to timely make written arguments after the Wade hearing constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Counsel submitted written arguments that, although untimely, were considered by Supreme Court, and those arguments "set forth a cogent theory for suppression of the evidence, and defense counsel vigorously pursued that theory through cross-examination of the police witness" (People v Harris, 147 A.D.3d 1354, 1356 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1032 [2017]; cf. People v Clermont, 22 N.Y.3d 931, 933-934 [2013]). Similarly, counsel's failure to preserve all of defendant's legal sufficiency challenges does not constitute ineffective assistance because those challenges would not have been meritorious (see People v Jackson, 108 A.D.3d 1079, 1080 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 997 [2013]).
Defendant's contention that defense counsel was ineffective in failing to call a particular witness is based on matters outside the record and thus must be raised in a motion pursuant to CPL article 440 (see generally People v Maffei, 35 N.Y.3d 264, 269-270 [2020]). Defendant's contentions concerning the purported inadequacies in the cross-examination of the witnesses are merely "hindsight disagreements with defense counsel's trial strategies, and defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing the absence of any legitimate explanations for those strategies" (People v Morrison, 48 A.D.3d 1044, 1045 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 10 N.Y.3d 867 [2008]; see People v Smith, 192 A.D.3d 1648, 1649 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 968 [2021]). Viewing the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case as a whole and as of the time of the representation, we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation (see generally People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147 [1981]).
Contrary to defendant's further contention, the court did not err in...
To continue reading
Request your trial