People v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 26 March 2002 |
| Citation | 739 N.Y.S.2d 381,292 A.D.2d 284 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>SAMMY JOHNSON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
The court properly determined that the eight-year-old victim demonstrated sufficient intelligence and capacity, as well as a sufficient understanding of the obligation of an oath and the consequences of giving false testimony, to justify his being sworn as a witness (see, People v Nisoff, 36 NY2d 560, 566; People v Parks, 41 NY2d 36, 46; People v Cordero, 257 AD2d 372, 373-374, lv denied 93 NY2d 968). The victim understood that it was wrong to lie, stated that he would not lie to help his mother and understood that he would be punished if he did lie.
Defendant has not provided a sufficient record for this Court to evaluate his claim that the trial court improperly declined to release the "complaint" made by the victim's mother to the Victim Services Agency, since defendant has not subpoenaed this document. It is defendant's obligation to prepare a proper record for appeal (see, People v Olivo, 52 NY2d 309, 320; People v Cortijo, 254 AD2d 125, lv denied 92 NY2d 1030). Thus, even if we were to treat this document as Rosario material (but see, People v Berkley, 157 AD2d 463, 465-466, lv denied 75 NY2d 917), defendant would be unable to demonstrate any prejudice from the denial of his access to the document, as he must (People v Fuller, 286 AD2d 650; CPL 240.75). In any event, the trial court examined the document in camera and found that it contained nothing material to the case, and that determination is entitled to great deference on appeal (see, People v Arredondo, 226 AD2d 322, lv denied 88 NY2d 964).
The court properly denied, without a hearing, defendant's motion to vacate his judgment of conviction on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant failed to include an affidavit of his trial counsel explaining why defendant's father was not called as a witness, or an explanation as to why such affidavit was not included (see, People v Morales, 58 NY2d 1008; People v Gil, 285 AD2d 7, 11-12).
Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jenkins v. Greene
...the rule that either an attorney's affidavit or an explanation for its absence is required. See, e.g., People v. Johnson, 292 A.D.2d 284, 739 N.Y.S.2d 381, 383 (1st Dep't 2002) (affirming trial court's denial of motion to vacate conviction due to ineffective assistance because defendant “fa......
-
People v. Irizarry
...affirmation warranted summary denial of motion collaterally attacking conviction based on attorney's alleged conduct]; People v. Johnson, 292 A.D.2d 284 [1st Dept 2002] [court denied defendant's motion to vacate his judgment of conviction alleging ineffective assistance of counsel based on ......
-
People v. Lezama
...denial of 440.10 motion is proper where defendant failed to reveal an issue to be resolved by a hearing); People v. Johnson, 292 A.D.2d 284, 285, 739 N.Y.S.2d 381 (1st Dept.2002). But see, People v. Gil, 285 A.D.2d 7, 10, 729 N.Y.S.2d 121 (1st Dept.2001)(court erred in denying hearing where......
-
Amalia R. v. Angel A. (In re Angelica A.)
...to a subpoena served by respondent were protected as attorney work product (see CPLR 3101(d)(2) ; see also People v. Johnson, 292 A.D.2d 284, 285, 739 N.Y.S.2d 381 [1st Dept. 2002], lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 698, 747 N.Y.S.2d 416, 776 N.E.2d 5 [2002] ).We have considered respondent's remaining ar......