People v. Figueroa
| Decision Date | 10 February 1999 |
| Citation | 258 A.D.2d 960,685 N.Y.S.2d 506 |
| Parties | 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 1163 PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anthony FIGUEROA, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Howard Broder, Rochester, for Appellant.
Howard R. Relin, Rochester, for Respondent.
Present: DENMAN, P.J., GREEN, HAYES, PIGOTT, Jr., and BALIO, JJ.
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of murder in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 20.00, 125.25). We reject the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel as a result of defense counsel's seeking to admit the oral and written statements of a codefendant who was tried separately. Defense counsel articulated a reasonable strategic basis for the admission of the statements (see, People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 708, 530 N.Y.S.2d 52, 525 N.E.2d 698). Defendant failed to establish "the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel's failure" to move to suppress based upon the denial of defendant's right to counsel (People v. Rivera, supra, at 709, 530 N.Y.S.2d 52, 525 N.E.2d 698; see also, People v. Garcia, 75 N.Y.2d 973, 974, 556 N.Y.S.2d 505, 555 N.E.2d 902). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).
We reject defendant's contention that Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling was an abuse of discretion (see, People v. Wiggins, 227 A.D.2d 918, 919, 643 N.Y.S.2d 790, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 1072, 651 N.Y.S.2d 416, 674 N.E.2d 346, 89 N.Y.2d 1016, 658 N.Y.S.2d 255, 680 N.E.2d 629). We have examined defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.
Judgment unanimously affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial