People v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 20 December 1989
• Citation: People v. Robinson, 549 N.Y.S.2d 266, 156 A.D.2d 974 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Thomas Mack ROBINSON a/k/a Coochie Robinson, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 266

549 N.Y.S.2d 266

156 A.D.2d 974

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Thomas Mack ROBINSON a/k/a Coochie Robinson, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Fourth Department.

Dec. 20, 1989.

Thomas Robinson, Sonyea, pro se.

Peter L. Broderick by Thomas Brandt, Lockport, for respondent.

Before BOOMER, J.P., and GREEN, PINE, BALIO and LAWTON, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

On appeal, defendant's sole contention is that he was denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to assert an agency defense, and instead, pursued a defense of mistaken identity. The fact that an attorney chooses to rely upon an unsuccessful defense to the exclusion of another available defense does not mean that the attorney's representation was ineffective (see, People v. Lane, 60 N.Y.2d 748, 469 N.Y.S.2d 663, 457 N.E.2d 769; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400). Contrary to defendant's suggestion, trial counsel's choice was not irrational or unsupportable. On cross-examination, the undercover officer conceded that the descriptions of defendant appearing in his handwritten notes and testified to before the Grand Jury and at a Wade hearing were mistaken. Defense counsel also elicited numerous testimonial inconsistencies from the undercover officer and his informant. Counsel's summation...