People v. Edwards

• Decision Date: 16 June 2017
• Citation: 57 N.Y.S.3d 817,151 A.D.3d 1832
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Todd A. EDWARDS, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

151 A.D.3d 1832
57 N.Y.S.3d 817

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Todd A. EDWARDS, Defendant–Appellant.

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

June 16, 2017.

57 N.Y.S.3d 818

Davison Law Office PLLC, Canandaigua (Mary P. Davison of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

Brooks T. Baker, District Attorney, Bath (John C. Tunney of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, NEMOYER, AND CURRAN, JJ.

57 N.Y.S.3d 819

MEMORANDUM:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, robbery in the first degree ( Penal Law § 160.15 [3 ] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, the record establishes that County Court conducted a sufficient inquiry and considered the relevant factors, including the charged offenses, defendant's history of multiple felony convictions, and his prior conduct, before acting within its broad discretion in determining that requiring defendant to wear a stun belt was necessary for courtroom security (see People v. Brooks, 139 A.D.3d 1391, 1392, 31 N.Y.S.3d 372, lv. denied 28 N.Y.3d 1026, 45 N.Y.S.3d 378, 68 N.E.3d 107 ; see generally People v. Buchanan, 13 N.Y.3d 1, 4, 884 N.Y.S.2d 337, 912 N.E.2d 553 ).

Defendant further contends that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to request a mid-trial Wade hearing or preclusion of identification testimony based on the People's violation of CPL 710.30 after the clerk of the store that was robbed testified on cross-examination that an investigator had showed her a photograph of defendant during the course of the criminal investigation. We conclude that defendant's contention is based on matters outside the record and therefore must be raised by way of a motion pursuant to CPL article 440 (see generally People v. Alligood, 139 A.D.3d 1398, 1398, 29 N.Y.S.3d 841 ). To the extent that we are able to review defendant's contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on the record before us, we conclude that defendant was provided meaningful representation (see generally People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400 ). Defendant's attorneys were not ineffective for failing to pursue a Wade hearing with respect to his employer's identification of him from the surveillance video of the robbery where, as here, " ‘no Wade hearing was required because the identifying witness[ ] knew defendant, and thus the identification was merely confirmatory’ " ( People v. Sebring, 111 A.D.3d 1346, 1346–1347, 974 N.Y.S.2d 722, lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 1159, 984 N.Y.S.2d 643, 7 N.E.3d 1131 ; see generally People v. Walker, 115 A.D.3d 1357, 1358, 982 N.Y.S.2d 679, lv. denied 23 N.Y.3d 1069, 994 N.Y.S.2d 328, 18 N.E.3d 1149 ). To the extent that defendant contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge certain prospective jurors and to request particular jury instructions, we conclude that defendant failed " ‘to demonstrate the...