People v. Schrock

• Decision Date: 05 October 2012
• Citation: 951 N.Y.S.2d 819,99 A.D.3d 1196,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 06667
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael L. SCHROCK, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

99 A.D.3d 1196

951 N.Y.S.2d 819

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 06667

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Michael L. SCHROCK, Defendant–Appellant.

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

Oct. 5, 2012.

Wagner & Hart, LLP, Olean (Janine C. Fodor of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

Michael L. Schrock, Defendant–Appellantpro se.

Lori Pettit Rieman, District Attorney, Little Valley, for Respondent.

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Defendant appeals from an order denying his motion to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10.The judgment had been entered following a jury trial at which defendant was found guilty of having committed numerous felonies, including attempted murder in the first degree and robbery in the first degree.In support of his CPL 440.10 motion, defendant contended that he is entitled to a new trial because he was improperly required to wear a stun belt at trial.Defendant further contended that he is entitled to a new trial because his trial attorney was ineffective for failing to object to the use of the stun belt and for failing “to adequately develop” his insanity defense.According to defendant, in pursuing that defense his trial attorney should have interviewed defendant's fellow inmate, who had provided the attorney with a written statement in which he claimed to have overheard various jail deputies talking about defendant's mental condition.County Court denied the motion following a hearing.

We agree with the court that defendant was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel.As the court properly determined, defense counsel was not ineffective in failing to object to the use of the stun belt inasmuch as the seminal case regarding the use of stun belts, People v. Buchanan,13 N.Y.3d 1, 884 N.Y.S.2d 337, 912 N.E.2d 553, was not decided until approximately two years after defendant's trial.We note that defendant wore the stun belt for only one day of trial, during the testimony of the People's rebuttal witness, and he never complained to anyone—including his attorney—about having to wear it.In addition, there is no indication in the record that the stun belt affected defendant's ability to communicate with his attorney.We also reject defendant's claim that defense counsel did not adequately develop his insanity defense by, e.g., failing to interview a fellow inmate, and thus was ineffective.Even assuming, arguendo, that the fellow inmate provided a written statement to defendant's attorney setting forth that he overheard jail deputies discussing defendant's mental condition, we conclude that the fellow inmate possessed only hearsay information and thus could not have been called as a witness at trial.The record also demonstrates that defendant's attorney called numerous witnesses at trial to support the insanity defense, including employees of the jail who observed defendant's behavior while incarcerated.

We now turn to defendant's contention that he was improperly required to wear the stun belt.As the court...