People v. McMillan
| Decision Date | 24 June 1985 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. George McMILLAN, a/k/a George McNeal, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Andrew B. Donnellan, Jr., and William E. Hellerstein, New York City (John A. Chatzky, New York City, of counsel), for appellant (one brief).
George McMillan, pro se.
Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood, Peter A. Weinstein and Evan Wolfson, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., LAZER, MANGANO, BROWN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 7, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Judgment affirmed.
Defendant's trial counsel elicited testimony from a police witness which tended to establish that defendant, at the time of his arrest, was a participant in a separate uncharged crime. The prosecutor had avoided this area on direct examination and this incriminating testimony would therefore not have been adduced but for defense counsel's questioning during cross-examination. Under these circumstances, there was no error committed.
Defendant also argues that he was deprived of his right to effective assistance of counsel, citing mainly the trial tactic referred to above. Regardless of the merits of trial counsel's decision to bring his client's involvement in an uncharged crime to the jury's attention, we find that such trial tactic, whether wise or unwise, did not rise to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel and note that the proof of guilt was overwhelming (Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674; People v. Morris, 100 A.D.2d 630, 473 N.Y.S.2d 595, affd. 64 N.Y.2d 803, 486 N.Y.S.2d 920, 476 N.E.2d 319). Reversal is therefore not warranted on this basis.
Furthermore, defendant was not entitled to a missing witness charge, absent any indication that the subject witness' testimony would have been noncumulative and that such witness was, in either a formal or a practical sense, under the control of the People (see, People v. Almodovar, 62 N.Y.2d 126, 476 N.Y.S.2d 95, 464 N.E.2d 463). We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find that they are without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Windley
... ... Hines, 46 A.D.3d 912, 913, 848 N.Y.S.2d 349; People v. Reilly, 128 A.D.2d 649, 650, 512 N.Y.S.2d 892; People v. McMillan, 111 A.D.2d 934, 935, 490 N.Y.S.2d 616). Likewise, a defendant cannot establish ineffectiveness merely by showing that his attorney employed questionable or debatable trial strategies ( People v. Sullivan, 153 A.D.2d 223, 227, 550 N.Y.S.2d 358) and, in any event, the defendant has failed to ... ...
-
People v. Redor
... ... Hence, we cannot say that the defendant was not afforded the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 497 N.Y.S.2d 903, 488 N.E.2d 834; People v. Diaz, 131 A.D.2d 775, 517 N.Y.S.2d 66; People v. McMillan, 111 A.D.2d 934, 490 N.Y.S.2d 616) ... The defendant's remaining contention ... ...
-
People v. Jeter
... ... Sullivan, 153 A.D.2d 223, 550 N.Y.S.2d 358; see also, People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 530 N.Y.S.2d 52, 525 N.E.2d 698; People v. McMillan, 111 A.D.2d 934, 490 N.Y.S.2d 616) ... As conceded by the People, the sentence imposed upon the conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree may not run consecutively to the other sentences imposed (see, Penal Law § 70.25; People v. Wachtel, 124 A.D.2d 613, ... ...
- People v. Looney, W125