People v. Hayes

• Decision Date: 28 September 1992
• Citation: 588 N.Y.S.2d 328,186 A.D.2d 268
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Robin HAYES, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 328

588 N.Y.S.2d 328

186 A.D.2d 268

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Robin HAYES, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Sept. 28, 1992.

Leighton M. Jackson, Brooklyn, for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Jay M. Cohen and Amy Griffin, of counsel, Hannah Kalish, on the brief), for respondent.

Before MANGANO, P.J., and BALLETTA, EIBER, PIZZUTO and SANTUCCI, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), rendered December 8, 1988, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's waiver of his rights comports with the standards set out in People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170. Contrary to the defendant's claim, the court ensured that the defendant was aware that he did not have to plead guilty and that he could proceed to trial if he had any question regarding the facts. Moreover, the record indicates that the defendant thought about the plea, conferred with his attorney, and voluntarily rephrased his statement of the facts of the crime to remove any ambiguity. Thus, the defendant's plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

Furthermore, contrary to his assertions, the defendant received the effective assistance of counsel. In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must overcome the presumption of effectiveness and show that counsel failed to provide "meaningful representation" (People v. Jackson, 70 N.Y.2d 768, 769, 520 N.Y.S.2d 746, 514 N.E.2d 1369). Additionally, the defendant must show that, but for counsel's allegedly deficient performance, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted upon going to trial (see, Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57-59, 106 S.Ct. 366, 370, 88 L.Ed.2d 203). Here, the defendant has not overcome the presumption. The mere fact that different attorneys assisted in the defendant's case at different times does not render their assistance ineffective (see, Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 14, 103 S.Ct. 1610, 1617, 75 L.Ed.2d 610). Moreover, the defendant does not allege that he is actually innocent of the charges to which he voluntarily pleaded guilty (see, United States v. Tiler, 602 F.2d 30, 35). Nor does he assert that, but for the alleged errors of counsel, there is a reasonable possibility that he would not have...