People v. Reid
Decision Date | 03 February 2009 |
Docket Number | 5146. |
Citation | 2009 NY Slip Op 00580,59 A.D.3d 158,872 N.Y.S.2d 452 |
Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RAYMOND REID, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
To the extent that the record permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance of counsel at the SORA hearing notwithstanding counsel's failure to litigate any aspect of the adjudication. Although a sex offender adjudication is not part of a criminal action (People v Stevens, 91 NY2d 270, 277 [1998]), for present purposes we assume, without deciding, that the state and federal standards for effective assistance at a criminal trial (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]) would apply. However, given the differences between a SORA hearing and a criminal trial, we reject defendant's argument that counsel's conduct was the functional equivalent of a guilty plea unconstitutionally entered by the attorney without the client's consent (compare Brookhart v Janis, 384 US 1 [1966]; see also People v Costas, 46 AD3d 475 [2007], lv denied 10 AD3d 716 [2008] [ ]).
Counsel could have reasonably concluded that there was nothing to litigate at the hearing (cf. People v DeFreitas, 213 AD2d 96, 101 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 872 [1995] [ ]). The record reveals that counsel, who was undoubtedly familiar with the case based upon his prior representation of defendant on the underlying conviction, had reviewed the case summary and the risk assessment instrument before the hearing, and had consulted with defendant about the assessment. Based upon the detailed justification provided in the case summary for the assessment and, in the absence of any evidence that defendant informed counsel that he disputed any factual details, there was no reason for counsel to challenge the assessment. Defendant's personal complaints at the hearing went to the validity of the underlying conviction, and not to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People of State v. Bowles
...without deciding, that the state and federal standards for effective assistance at a criminal trial would apply ”( People v. Reid, 59 A.D.3d 158, 158, 872 N.Y.S.2d 452 [emphasis added] [internal citations omitted]; see People v. Santana, 72 A.D.3d 538, 898 N.Y.S.2d 455; People v. Reyes, 72 ......
-
People v. Butler
...provide meaningful representation to the defendant (see People v. Willingham, 101 A.D.3d at 979, 956 N.Y.S.2d 165 ; People v. Reid, 59 A.D.3d 158, 158–159, 872 N.Y.S.2d 452 ). Given that the assessment of 30 points under risk factor 5 was based upon a mere age range estimate, there is a rea......
-
People v. Clement
..., 126 A.D.3d 1488, 1489, 6 N.Y.S.3d 379 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 903, 2015 WL 5149744 [2015] ; People v. Reid , 59 A.D.3d 158, 159, 872 N.Y.S.2d 452 [1st Dept. 2009], lv denied 12 N.Y.3d 708, 881 N.Y.S.2d 17, 908 N.E.2d 925 [2009] ). We have considered defendant's remaining con......
-
People v. Greenfield, 317 KA 14-00973
...level (see People v. Goldbeck, 104 A.D.3d 567, 567–568, 963 N.Y.S.2d 1, lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 860, 2013 WL 3197669 ; People v. Reid, 59 A.D.3d 158, 159, 872 N.Y.S.2d 452, lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 708, 881 N.Y.S.2d 17, 908 N.E.2d 925, 908 N.E.2d 925 ). It is well established that “[a] defendant i......