People v. Chisholm

• Decision Date: 29 February 1988
• Citation: 137 A.D.2d 828,525 N.Y.S.2d 290
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Derek CHISHOLM, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 290

525 N.Y.S.2d 290

137 A.D.2d 828

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Derek CHISHOLM, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Feb. 29, 1988.

Jeffrey A. Barr, New York City, for appellant.

John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Salvatore J. Modica, of counsel), for respondent.

Before THOMPSON, J.P., and BROWN, LAWRENCE and WEINSTEIN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Farlo, J.), rendered May 13, 1986 convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Under the circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant's application for the assignment of new counsel, since good cause therefor was not shown. The defendant's application for new assigned counsel was first stated during jury selection and his criticism of counsel was not made with sufficient specificity to be evaluated ( see, People v. Medina, 44 N.Y.2d 199, 404 N.Y.S.2d 588, 375 N.E.2d 768; People v. Leach, 108 A.D.2d 871, 485 N.Y.S.2d 769). The defendant's claim that counsel was not familiar with his case is belied by the record which showed that counsel had represented the defendant for more than one year prior to the trial.

We also reject the defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The defense counsel presented cogent opening and closing arguments, conducted extensive cross-examination of the witnesses both at the Wade hearing and during trial, and raised appropriate objections. In addition, counsel made an effective presentation at sentencing, providing the court with a presentence memorandum and a psychiatric report, and speaking to numerous points raised by the Probation Department's presentence report. Thus, the defendant was provided with effective representation both at trial and at sentencing ( see, People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 497 N.Y.S.2d 903, 488 N.E.2d 834; People v. Lane, 60 N.Y.2d 748, 469 N.Y.S.2d 663, 457 N.E.2d 769; People v. Cartagena, 128 A.D.2d 797, 513 N.Y.S.2d 497, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 798, 522 N.Y.S.2d 116, 516 N.E.2d 1229).

We do not agree with the defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial by certain allegedly prejudicial statements made by the prosecutor during summation. Some of the remarks were responsive to similar remarks made in the defense counsel's summation ( see, People v. Blackman, 88 A.D.2d 620, 450 N.Y.S.2d 38) and any potential prejudice was minimized by specific curative instructions from the trial court ( see, People v. Williams, 46 N.Y.2d 1070, 416 N.Y.S.2d 792, 390 N.E.2d 299; People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 383...