People v. Garcia
| Decision Date | 29 May 1990 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Frank E. GARCIA, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
David L. Lewis, New York City, for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Jay M. Cohen, Richard T. Faughnan and Nancy F. Talcott, of counsel), for respondent.
Before KOOPER, J.P., and HARWOOD, BALLETTA and MILLER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rienzi, J.), both rendered February 6, 1987, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) under Indictment No. 2786/85, and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree under Indictment No. 2845/85, upon jury verdicts, and imposing sentences.
ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant claims, inter alia, that he was deprived of a fair trial by the alleged ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. Furthermore, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to conduct, sua sponte, a competency hearing pursuant to CPL article 730 given the fact that the court was made aware of his allegedly deteriorating medical condition. We conclude otherwise and affirm.
It is well settled that in analyzing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we must "avoid both confusing true ineffectiveness with mere losing tactics and according undue significance to retrospective analysis" (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146-147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400; see also, People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 798, 497 N.Y.S.2d 903, 488 N.E.2d 834). Moreover, " '[t]he right to counsel was not intended to afford a defendant, aided by the wisdom of hindsight, to second guess matters of trial strategy employed by counsel' " (People v. Aiken, 45 N.Y.2d 394, 399, 408 N.Y.S.2d 444, 380 N.E.2d 272; People v. Sullivan, 153 A.D.2d 223, 227, 550 N.Y.S.2d 358; see also, People v. Rivera, 70 N.Y.2d 705, 519 N.Y.S.2d 1041, 513 N.E.2d 718; People v. Benn, 68 N.Y.2d 941, 510 N.Y.S.2d 81, 502 N.E.2d 996). Counsel's performance must be viewed "in its entirety, in conjunction with the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case" (see, People v. Vanterpool, 143 A.D.2d 282, 532 N.Y.S.2d 279; People v. Baldi, supra, 54 N.Y.2d at 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, a review of the record discloses that he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Although the defendant, with counsel's assistance, complained during trial about (1) the food he was receiving, (2) alleged inadequate medical attention, and (3) the late hour at which he was being returned to the Rikers Island facility during the trial, he never suggested that his physical condition deprived him of the ability to understand the proceedings against him or prevented him from assisting in his own defense (see, CPL 730.10[1]; People v. Picozzi, 106 A.D.2d 413, 482 N.Y.S.2d 335). Moreover, the record reveals that in response to the defendant's complaints the court arranged a special examination for him outside the prison facility at Kings County Hospital and subsequently conferred with the defendant's treating physicians in order to ascertain the status of his health. Further, the court promised to speak to the correction authorities in order to alleviate the defendant's remaining complaints.
Accordingly, and insofar as the record discloses, there is no evidence supporting the defendant's present contention that the trial court erred in declining, sua sponte, to conduct a competency hearing and, moreover, no basis to assume that trial counsel's representation was ineffective because he failed to request such a hearing (cf., People v. Mettler, 147 A.D.2d 849, 538 N.Y.S.2d 74). As to the defendant's remaining assertions of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Truss
...the effects of his medication had worn off so that he did understand the proceedings. He never claimed otherwise (see, People v. Garcia, 161 A.D.2d 796, 556 N.Y.S.2d 667), and he acknowledged that he had discussed his options with his attorney and was satisfied with counsel's representation......
- People v. Gadson
-
People v. Kaufman
...v. Gensler, 72 N.Y.2d 239, 532 N.Y.S.2d 72, 527 N.E.2d 1209, cert. denied 488 U.S. 932, 109 S.Ct. 323, 102 L.Ed.2d 341; People v. Garcia, 161 A.D.2d 796, 556 N.Y.S.2d 667; People v. Bisnett, 144 A.D.2d 567, 534 N.Y.S.2d 424; People v. Stokes, 118 A.D.2d 670, 500 N.Y.S.2d We have examined th......
-
People v. Garcia
...561 N.Y.S.2d 555 76 N.Y.2d 893, 562 N.E.2d 880 People v. Garcia (Frank E.) COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK SEP 18, 1990 Simons, J. 161 A.D.2d 796, 556 N.Y.S.2d 667 App.Div. 2, Kings Denied ...