People v. Hobot

• Citation: 622 N.Y.S.2d 675,84 N.Y.2d 1021,646 N.E.2d 1102
• Parties: , 646 N.E.2d 1102 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Wilfredo HOBOT, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 17 January 1995
• Court: New York Court of Appeals

Page 675

622 N.Y.S.2d 675

84 N.Y.2d 1021, 646 N.E.2d 1102

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Wilfredo HOBOT, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Jan. 17, 1995.

[84 N.Y.2d 1022] [646 N.E.2d 1103] Leighton M. Jackson, Brooklyn, for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty. of Kings County, Brooklyn (Ruth E. Ross, Jay M. Cohen and Roseann B. MacKechnie, of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of two counts of rape in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree for his encounter with the then nine-year-old daughter of the woman with whom defendant lived. Defendant moved to vacate his conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10 on the ground that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Defendant asserted that trial counsel's failure to review a "vital" document "significantly contributed" to his conviction. The trial court conducted a hearing addressed to this issue, and subsequently denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed, with two Justices dissenting.

To prevail on his claim that he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel, defendant bears the well-settled, high burden of demonstrating that he was deprived of a fair trial by less than meaningful representation (see, People v. Flores, 84 N.Y.2d 184, 186, 615 N.Y.S.2d 662, 639 N.E.2d 19; People v. Benn, 68 N.Y.2d 941, 942, 510 N.Y.S.2d 81, 502 N.E.2d 996). There is no precise definition of what constitutes ineffective legal representation, nor is there a particular standard applicable to every case (see, People v. Bennett, 29 N.Y.2d 462, 466, 329 N.Y.S.2d 801, 280 N.E.2d 637). Rather, all of the evidence must be weighed in context and as of the time of representation to assess the alleged deficient representation. Where a single, substantial error by counsel so seriously compromises a defendant's right to a fair trial, it will qualify as ineffective representation (see, People v. Flores, 84 N.Y.2d, at 188, 615 N.Y.S.2d 662, 639 N.E.2d 19, supra; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146-147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).

There is no dispute that trial counsel erred in failing to familiarize himself with a document labeled "Medical Office" bearing a Brooklyn address and phone number. This document, a handwritten letter prepared by the general practitioner following her medical examination of the complainant, describes her observation of various contusions on the child's face and body, as well as a genital rash, which notation is preceded by the words "w[ith] intact hymen." The letter concludes with a referral of the "patient to proper authorities for evaluation." Defendant maintains that this document conclusively refutes the medical evidence presented by the prosecution, and trial counsel's failure to utilize this material mandates a new trial. Defendant's claim is unsupported by the record before us.

Defendant's trial counsel vigorously cross-examined the People's medical expert, certified by the court as an expert in the field of gynecology, who observed two small tears in the complainant's hymen after an internal examination of the child's pelvis. Trial counsel successfully elicited testimony from this doctor that such tears were not conclusive of penetration by a male sex organ, and that it was impossible to pinpoint the specific date the child sustained the tears or the rash. Trial counsel attempted to establish an alibi defense, eliciting testimony from relatives regarding defendant's absence from the complainant's home on the dates of the alleged...