People v. Nevarez
| Decision Date | 27 June 1988 |
| Citation | 530 N.Y.S.2d 203,141 A.D.2d 861 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Felix NEVAREZ, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Stephen Kolnik, New Rochelle, for appellant.
Carl A. Vergari, Dist. Atty., White Plains (Michael A. D'Addario and Maryanne Luciano, of counsel), for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and SPATT, SULLIVAN and HARWOOD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Martin, J.), rendered May 13, 1985, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The record does not support the defendant's claim that he was denied his constitutional right to a fair trial by virtue of the ineffective assistance of counsel. An off-duty police officer observed the defendant waiting in his tan-colored van while his coperpetrator burglarized a residence in broad daylight. When the officer approached the pair, the defendant drove off only to be apprehended a short distance away. Trial counsel proffered the defense that the defendant was unaware of the coperpetrator's intent to burglarize the home and had been unwittingly duped into giving his friend a ride to that address. Trial counsel presented character witnesses, the defendant himself and a witness to refute the testimony given by the police officer as to the physical layout of the officer's vantage point from which he observed the burglary.
This appeal centers not on any theory of defense that was ignored or on any witnesses or evidence which should have been presented. Rather, with the clarity of hindsight, the defendant now recounts technical flaws and postulates how counsel might have proceeded differently at each stage of the proceedings. However, mere losing tactics do not automatically indicate ineffectiveness ( see, People v. Benn, 68 N.Y.2d 941, 510 N.Y.S.2d 81, 502 N.E.2d 996; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400). Upon our review of the record, we are satisfied that the defendant received meaningful representation and was not denied a fair trial ( see, People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 497 N.Y.S.2d 903, 488 N.E.2d 834; People v. Baldi, supra; People v. Aiken, 45 N.Y.2d 394, 408 N.Y.S.2d 444, 380 N.E.2d 272).
Similarly unavailing is the defendant's contention that the trial court improperly interjected itself into...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Sullivan
...N.Y.2d 941, 510 N.Y.S.2d 81, 502 N.E.2d 996; see also, People v. Coleman, 142 A.D.2d 586, 587-588, 530 N.Y.S.2d 242; People v. Nevarez, 141 A.D.2d 861, 862, 530 N.Y.S.2d 203). The weightier the evidence possessed by the prosecution, the more desperate the tactics employed by the defense cou......
-
People v. Scott
...contention, in questioning one of the People's witnesses, the court properly intervened to clarify issues (see, People v. Nevarez, 141 A.D.2d 861, 530 N.Y.S.2d 203). In any event, this questioning did not unfairly prejudice the defendant since upon his motion it was stricken from the record......
-
People v. Martinez
...is permissible in order to clarify issues (see, People v. Yut Wai Tom, 53 N.Y.2d 44, 439 N.Y.S.2d 896, 422 N.E.2d 556; People v. Nevarez, 141 A.D.2d 861, 530 N.Y.S.2d 203; People v. McCoy, 122 A.D.2d 957, 506 N.Y.S.2d 103). The court ameliorated any possible prejudice to the defendant by in......
-
People v. Nevarez
...534 N.Y.S.2d 947 72 N.Y.2d 1048, 531 N.E.2d 667 People v. Nevarez (Felix) COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK OCT 26, 1988 Hancock, J. 141 A.D.2d 861, 530 N.Y.S.2d 203 App.Div. 2, Westchester Denied ...