People v. Carver

• Decision Date: 07 June 2016
• Docket Number: No. 76,76
• Citation: 53 N.E.3d 734,33 N.Y.S.3d 857,27 N.Y.3d 418,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 04322
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Leroy CARVER, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

27 N.Y.3d 418
53 N.E.3d 734
33 N.Y.S.3d 857
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 04322

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Leroy CARVER, Appellant.

No. 76

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 7, 2016.

33 N.Y.S.3d 857

Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Janet C. Somes of counsel), for appellant.

Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Scott Myles of counsel), for respondent.

33 N.Y.S.3d 858

OPINION OF THE COURT

GARCIA, J.

53 N.E.3d 735

27 N.Y.3d 419

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of two counts of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25[2] ). The

27 N.Y.3d 420

evidence established that defendant was in the front passenger seat of a vehicle that was stopped by a police officer who observed items obstructing the windshield in violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Neither defendant nor the driver could produce identification, and both men provided false names and identifying information. The men also gave false information concerning their earlier whereabouts. The officer noticed that the men appeared to be “very anxious” and “very nervous,” and he also observed several large duffel bags on the backseat. A pair of gloves rested on top of one of the bags, and the edge of a laptop computer could be seen inside one of the open bags. While the officer returned to his patrol vehicle to run a records check, the driver of the vehicle fled on foot. The officer ran back and found that defendant had removed his seat belt and was attempting to get out of the car. Defendant was detained and frisked, and a digital camera—later determined to be stolen—was recovered from defendant's coat pocket. While defendant was detained, the officer learned that two nearby homes had recently been burglarized. During a subsequent inventory search, a number of items belonging to the burglary victims were recovered from the vehicle.

Defendant challenges his conviction, contending that a series of alleged errors—stretching from pretrial proceedings through sentencing—deprived him of effective assistance of counsel. The Appellate Division, with two Justices dissenting, affirmed, concluding that defendant was afforded meaningful representation (People v. Carver, 124 A.D.3d 1276, 999 N.Y.S.2d 632 [4th Dept.2015] ). A Justice of the Appellate Division granted leave to appeal. We similarly reject defendant's claims.

Defendant first argues that his trial attorney was ineffective for failing to seek suppression of the stolen property by challenging the legality of the traffic stop and the “pat down” incident to defendant's detention. To prevail on his claim, defendant must demonstrate “the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel's failure to pursue ‘colorable’ claims” (People v. Garcia, 75 N.Y.2d 973, 974, 556 N.Y.S.2d 505, 555 N.E.2d 902 [1990], citing People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 709, 530 N.Y.S.2d 52, 525 N.E.2d 698 [1988] ). Only in the “rare case” will it be possible, based on the trial record alone, to deem counsel ineffective for failure to...