People v. Kinlock

• Decision Date: 24 December 2008
• Docket Number: 101336.
• Citation: 57 A.D.3d 1227,2008 NY Slip Op 10067,870 N.Y.S.2d 535
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DAVID KINLOCK, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

57 A.D.3d 1227

870 N.Y.S.2d 535

2008 NY Slip Op 10067

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DAVID KINLOCK, Appellant.

101336.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department.

December 24, 2008.

Appeal, by permission, from an order of the County Court of Ulster County (Bruhn, J.), entered August 29, 2007, which denied defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment convicting him of the crime of rape in the third degree, without a hearing.

CARDONA, P.J.

In satisfaction of a two-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to rape in the third degree and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1 to 3 years to run concurrently with a sentence he was already serving. Thereafter, defendant brought this CPL 440.10 motion seeking principally to vacate the judgment of conviction on the ground that the People allegedly deprived him of the right to testify before the grand jury pursuant to CPL 190.50 (5) (a). County Court denied the motion without a hearing. Defendant now appeals, by permission of this Court.

Significantly, a defendant's objections to the People's notice of presentment of an indictment are waived by a failure to move to dismiss the indictment within five days after the arraignment (see CPL 190.50 [5] [c]; People v Wright, 5 AD3d 873, 874 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 651 [2004]). Inasmuch as defendant first raised the issue of lack of notice nine months after his arraignment, County Court properly denied his motion as untimely.

We are also unpersuaded by defendant's contention that his CPL article 440 motion should have been granted because of ineffective assistance of counsel. While defendant did indicate in his supporting affidavit attached to this motion that one of the grounds for relief was "[i]neffective counsel," he provided no further elaboration for that claim aside from asserting that the People's failure to provide him with notice deprived him of "the right to effectively use counsel." Significantly, even if we accepted defendant's argument that he was not provided notice, a defense counsel's conduct in not moving "to dismiss the indictment based on the prosecution's failure to afford defendant an opportunity to testify before the grand jury, without more, is insufficient to demonstrate ineffective assistance, particularly where defendant failed to demonstrate an absence of strategic or legitimate reasons for counsel's failure to pursue this course of action" (People v Miller, ...