People v. Lasher

• Decision Date: 02 December 1993
• Citation: People v. Lasher, 605 N.Y.S.2d 973, 199 A.D.2d 595 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Stacy LASHER, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 973

605 N.Y.S.2d 973

199 A.D.2d 595

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v.Stacy LASHER, Appellant.

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

Dec. 2, 1993.

Anthony A. Fazzone, Schenectady, for appellant.

Robert M. Carney, Dist. Atty., Schenectady, for respondent.

MAHONEY, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County(Harrigan, J.), rendered January 25, 1993, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of grand larceny in the third degree.

By his plea of guilty, defendant has forfeited appellate review of any claim that his right to testify before the Grand Jury (CPL 190.50) has been violated (see, e.g., People v. Smith, 168 A.D.2d 915, 564 N.Y.S.2d 884, lv. denied77 N.Y.2d 911, 569 N.Y.S.2d 943, 572 N.E.2d 626;People v. Roberson, 149 A.D.2d 926, 540 N.Y.S.2d 60, lv. denied74 N.Y.2d 746, 545 N.Y.S.2d 121, 543 N.E.2d 764;People v. Prest, 105 A.D.2d 1078, 1079, 482 N.Y.S.2d 172;People v. Ferrara, 99 A.D.2d 257, 472 N.Y.S.2d 407).Nor are we persuaded that the special circumstances present in People v. Ferrara(supra) and similar cases(see, People v. Stevens, 151 A.D.2d 704, 542 N.Y.S.2d 754;People v. Prest, supra;People v. Lincoln, 80 A.D.2d 877, 436 N.Y.S.2d 782) exist here so as to warrant departure from the general rule.It also being clear that failure to make a CPL 190.50(5)(c) motion, standing alone, is insufficient to demonstrate that a defendant was denied "meaningful representation" within the meaning of People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400, (see, e.g., People v. Brown, 184 A.D.2d 856, 585 N.Y.S.2d 106, lv. denied80 N.Y.2d 927, 589 N.Y.S.2d 855, 603 N.E.2d 960;People v. Hamilton, 165 A.D.2d 908, 560 N.Y.S.2d 518;People v. Sylvester, 165 A.D.2d 920, 560 N.Y.S.2d 530) and discerning no other representational deficiencies, we reject defendant's argument that he was denied effective assistance of counsel.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

MERCURE, J.P., and CARDONA, WHITE and CASEY, JJ., concur.