People v. Smith
| Decision Date | 25 July 2018 |
| Docket Number | Ind. No. 288/12,2014-08186 |
| Citation | 82 N.Y.S.3d 453,163 A.D.3d 1005 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Tyrell SMITH, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
163 A.D.3d 1005
82 N.Y.S.3d 453
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Tyrell SMITH, appellant.
2014-08186
Ind. No. 288/12
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued—April 3, 2018
July 25, 2018
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Jenin Younes of counsel), for appellant.
Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Morrie I. Kleinbart and Anne Grady of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, ROBERT J. MILLER, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Robert J. Collini, J.), rendered April 25, 2014, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to consecutive indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 25 years to life on each conviction.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by providing that the sentences imposed shall run concurrently with each other; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, trial counsel was not ineffective because he failed to controvert a warrant to search the defendant's cell phone. Taking into consideration the totality of the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case, it is evident that trial counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 714, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 ; People v. Toellner, 299 A.D.2d 567, 567–568, 750 N.Y.S.2d 646 ). Counsel's failure to the challenge the search warrant can be explained as a legitimate trial strategy because the application for the warrant was supported by probable cause, and the warrant was not unconstitutionally overbroad, despite a technical defect on the face of the warrant (see Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 558, 124 S.Ct. 1284, 157 L.Ed.2d 1068 ).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial when the Supreme Court admitted into evidence allegedly prejudicial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Rose
...174 A.D.3d 1159, 1165, 106 N.Y.S.3d 210 [2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 979, 113 N.Y.S.3d 646, 137 N.E.3d 16 [2019] ; People v. Smith, 163 A.D.3d 1005, 1005–1006, 82 N.Y.S.3d 453 [2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1068, 89 N.Y.S.3d 123, 113 N.E.3d 957 [2018] ). Next, defendant's contention that he was......
-
People v. Crupi
...to believe that evidence relating to the victim's murder 172 A.D.3d 899would be found on the identified devices (see People v. Smith, 163 A.D.3d 1005, 82 N.Y.S.3d 453 ; see also People v. Hanlon, 36 N.Y.2d 549, 559, 369 N.Y.S.2d 677, 330 N.E.2d 631 ). Moreover, contrary to the defendant's c......
-
People v. Dennis
...be explained as a legitimate trial strategy because the application for the warrant was supported by probable cause" ( People v. Smith, 163 A.D.3d 1005, 1005, 82 N.Y.S.3d 453 ). However, a new trial is required based upon the Supreme Court's failure to comply with CPL 310.30 in accordance w......
-
People v. Oliver
...only if its sole purpose is to arouse the emotions of the jury and to prejudice the defendant’ " ( 146 N.Y.S.3d 669 People v. Smith, 163 A.D.3d 1005, 1005–1006, 82 N.Y.S.3d 453, quoting People v. Mairs, 157 A.D.3d 818, 819, 66 N.Y.S.3d 635 ). "Such evidence is properly admissible ‘if it ten......
-
Relevance & materiality
...marriage and to provide the jury with background information regarding the defendant’s relationship with the victim. People v. Smith , 163 A.D.3d 1005, 82 N.Y.S.3d 453 (2d Dept. 2018). In a murder prosecution, the photographs admitted into evidence were relevant to material issues in the ca......
-
Relevance, materiality & presumptions
...the defendant’s relationship with the victim. RELEVANCE & MATERIALITY 4-11 RELEVANCE, MATERIALITY & PRESUMPTIONS §4:40 People v. Smith , 163 A.D.3d 1005, 82 N.Y.S.3d 453 (2d Dept. 2018). In a murder prosecution, the photographs admitted into evidence were relevant to material issues in the ......
-
Relevance, materiality & presumptions
...marriage and to provide the jury with background information regarding the defendant’s relationship with the victim. People v. Smith , 163 A.D.3d 1005, 82 N.Y.S.3d 453 (2d Dept. 2018). In a murder prosecution, the photographs admitted into evidence were relevant to material issues in the ca......