People v. Diallo

• Decision Date: 28 October 2015
• Citation: 18 N.Y.S.3d 440,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 07855,132 A.D.3d 1010
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Abdul DIALLO, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

132 A.D.3d 1010

18 N.Y.S.3d 440

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 07855

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Abdul DIALLO, appellant.

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

Oct. 28, 2015.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Anna Pervukhin of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Daniel Bresnahan of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.

Appeals by the defendant (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Griffin, J.), rendered September 26, 2011, convicting him of assault in the second degree, assault in the third degree, unlawful fleeing from a police officer in a motor vehicle in the second degree, and reckless endangerment in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2), by permission, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated October 31, 2013, as denied, without a hearing, that branch of his motion which was pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment rendered September 26, 2011.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from.

Following his convictions, the defendant filed a direct appeal and subsequently moved, inter alia, for an order pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate his judgment of conviction on the grounds that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel, and that he was unable to understand or meaningfully participate in the proceedings because he was not provided with an interpreter he could understand. The Supreme Court denied the motion without a hearing, and leave to appeal from that order was granted by this Court and consolidated with the direct appeal.

Some of the defendant's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel involve matters appearing on the record, while others involve matters that are outside the record. As the appeal from the denial of the defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 is before us, we have reviewed all of the defendant's allegations in totality in order to assess the overall fairness of the process as a whole ( see People v. Maxwell, 89 A.D.3d 1108, 1109, 933 N.Y.S.2d 386; see also People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 714, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584).

The defendant's contentions regarding the competency of his interpreter were never brought to the trial court's attention and have therefore been waived ( see People v. Robles, 86 N.Y.2d 763, 765, 631 N.Y.S.2d 131, 655 N.E.2d 172; People v. Kowlessar, 82 A.D.3d 417, 918 N.Y.S.2d 41; People v. Abreu, 248 A.D.2d 124, 125, 669 N.Y.S.2d 560; People v. Hong Ki Lee, 202 A.D.2d 443, 608 N.Y.S.2d 677). Nevertheless, inasmuch as the defendant contends that his trial counsel failed to demand that the interpreter be replaced, we have considered the defendant's allegations as part of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim ( see People v. Wong, 256 A.D.2d at 725, 682 N.Y.S.2d 689).

We are satisfied that the defendant received the effective assistance of counsel under the state and federal standards ( see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d at 713–714, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584; see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674). The defendant has not shown that counsel's alleged failures fell below an objective standard of reasonableness or that, viewed individually or collectively, the alleged deficiencies deprived him of a fair trial ( see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697...