People v. Cummings

• Decision Date: 24 February 2011
• Citation: 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 01362,16 N.Y.3d 784,919 N.Y.S.2d 500,944 N.E.2d 1139
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,v.Elijah CUMMINGS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

16 N.Y.3d 784
944 N.E.2d 1139
919 N.Y.S.2d 500
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 01362

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Elijah CUMMINGS, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Feb. 24, 2011.

[919 N.Y.S.2d 501]

Office of the Appellate Defender, New York City (Eunice C. Lee and Richard M. Greenberg of counsel), for appellant.Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York City (Lindsey M. Kneipper and Dana Poole of counsel), for respondent.

[944 N.E.2d 1140] OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The Appellate Division order should be affirmed.

[16 N.Y.3d 785] After a trial by jury, defendant was convicted of one count of burglary in the second degree and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree in connection with his theft of two loaded pistols from a Manhattan police precinct. Defendant argues on appeal that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the legal sufficiency of the People's proof on the second degree burglary conviction on the ground that a police precinct containing dormitories for overnight use is not a “dwelling.” A conviction of second degree burglary under Penal Law § 140.25(2) requires proof that the defendant entered or remained unlawfully in a dwelling. A building is considered a dwelling if it is “usually occupied by a person lodging therein at night” (Penal Law § 140.00[3] ). In People v. Barney, 99 N.Y.2d 367, 371–372, 756 N.Y.S.2d 132, 786 N.E.2d 31 (2003), we explained that “[b]y using the phrase ‘usually occupied’ to define dwelling, the Legislature clearly intended to enact a flexible standard.” Accordingly, there is no requirement that the

[944 N.E.2d 1141 , 919 N.Y.S.2d 502]

building “must always be a home or what would normally be considered a residence” ( People v. Quattlebaum, 91 N.Y.2d 744, 748, 675 N.Y.S.2d 585, 698 N.E.2d 421 [1998] ).

The core of our inquiry in reviewing ineffective assistance of counsel claims is whether counsel's performance “viewed in totality” amounts to “meaningful representation” ( People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400 [1981] ). Moreover, our case law in this area emphasizes that our Constitution “guarantees the accused a fair trial, not necessarily a perfect one” ( People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 [1998] ). Thus, in order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on a single error or omission, a defendant must demonstrate that the error was “so...