People v. Rodriguez

• Decision Date: 21 February 2012
• Citation: 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 01487,92 A.D.3d 902,940 N.Y.S.2d 647
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Roberto RODRIGUEZ, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 01487
92 A.D.3d 902
940 N.Y.S.2d 647

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Roberto RODRIGUEZ, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Feb. 21, 2012.

[940 N.Y.S.2d 647]

Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Paul Wiener of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Howard B. Goodman of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, ARIEL E. BELEN, and PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.

[92 A.D.3d 902] Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Del Giudice, J.), rendered February 18, 2009, convicting him of murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel as a result of his trial counsel's failure to move for a severance of his trial from that of his codefendant ( see People v. Velez, 78 A.D.3d 1522, 1522–1523, 911 N.Y.S.2d 530; People v. Alvarenga, 25 A.D.3d 560, 561, 806 N.Y.S.2d 416; People v. Ruger, 288 A.D.2d 686, 687, 732 N.Y.S.2d 727). “Nor does the defendant's disagreement with his trial counsel's tactics on cross-examination render the representation less than meaningful” ( People v. Alvarenga, 25 A.D.3d at 561, 806 N.Y.S.2d 416; see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712–713, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584; People v. Aiken, 45 N.Y.2d 394, 400, 408 N.Y.S.2d 444, 380 N.E.2d 272; People v. DiCarlo, 293 A.D.2d 279, 280–281, 741 N.Y.S.2d 508). Moreover, the defendant's contention that, during summation, his counsel mischaracterized a witness's testimony is without merit. Viewing the record as a whole, we conclude that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel under both federal and state standards ( see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674;

[940 N.Y.S.2d 648]

People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 152–156, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213; People v. Tomlinson, 67 A.D.3d 826, 827, 887 N.Y.S.2d 862; People v. Ross, 209 A.D.2d 730, 619 N.Y.S.2d 321).

[92 A.D.3d 903] The defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946). In any...