People v. McFarlane, 2003-04947.

Decision Date09 May 2005
Docket Number2003-04947.
Citation794 N.Y.S.2d 660,18 A.D.3d 577,2005 NY Slip Op 03882
PartiesTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RAYMOND McFARLANE, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The County Court properly determined, after a hearing, that the People established the voluntariness of the defendant's inculpatory statements. On appeal, the defendant improperly relies on his trial testimony to challenge that determination. "Where, as here, the defendant fails to move to reopen a suppression hearing, he or she may not rely upon the trial testimony to challenge the suppression ruling" (People v Gold, 249 AD2d 414, 415 [1998]; see People v Werner, 284 AD2d 419, 420 [2001]).

The defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is without merit. A review of the record as a whole reveals that the defendant was afforded meaningful representation (see People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 565 [2000]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). The defendant failed to demonstrate that there were no strategic or other legitimate explanations for his attorney's alleged shortcomings, and therefore failed to overcome the presumption that "counsel acted in a competent manner and exercised professional judgment" (People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; see People v Taylor, 1 NY3d 174, 177 [2003]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]).

The County Court providently exercised its discretion in imposing $1,000 fines on the defendant for each of his felony convictions (see Penal Law § 60.05 [7]) notwithstanding that he realized no financial gain therefrom (see Penal Law § 80.00 [2]). "[A] fine for a felony, when initially authorized by article 60, may be imposed, irrespective of whether the defendant gained money or property [L. 1977, c. 352; § 80.00]" (Donnino, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 39, Penal Law art 80, at 5).

The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • People v. Nowlin
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 23, 2016
    ...imposed, irrespective of whether the defendant gained money or property [L. 1977, c. 352; (Penal Law) § 80.00 ]’ " (People v. McFarlane, 18 A.D.3d 577, 578, 794 N.Y.S.2d 660, lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 791, 801 N.Y.S.2d 812, 835 N.E.2d 672, quoting William C. Donnino, Practice Commentary, McKinney......
  • People v. Fowler
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 12, 2012
    ...940;People v. Cortez, 81 A.D.3d 742, 742, 916 N.Y.S.2d 176;People v. Maxis, 50 A.D.3d at 923, 855 N.Y.S.2d 251;People v. McFarlane, 18 A.D.3d 577, 578, 794 N.Y.S.2d 660). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit ( see People v. Petronio, 34 A.D.3d 602, 604, 825 N.Y.S.2d 99;......
  • People v. Ortiz
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 15, 2013
    ...People's concession that the stolen property was returned and he realized no financial gain from the crime ( see People v. McFarlane, 18 A.D.3d 577, 578, 794 N.Y.S.2d 660,lv. denied5 N.Y.3d 791, 801 N.Y.S.2d 812, 835 N.E.2d 672). Defendant's further contention that the amount of the fine is......
  • People v. Lovett, 2002-00860.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 9, 2005

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT