People v. Walker

• Citation: 115 A.D.3d 1357,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 02199,982 N.Y.S.2d 679
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Quincey L. WALKER, Jr., Defendant–Appellant.
• Decision Date: 28 March 2014
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

115 A.D.3d 1357
982 N.Y.S.2d 679
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 02199

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Quincey L. WALKER, Jr., Defendant–Appellant.

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

March 28, 2014.

[982 N.Y.S.2d 680]

Leanne Lapp, Public Defender, Canandaigua, the Abbatoy Law Firm, PLLC, Rochester (David M. Abbatoy, Jr., of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

R. Michael Tantillo, District Attorney, Canandaigua (James B. Ritts of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of three counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39[1] ) and three counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (§ 220.03). Contrary to defendant's contention, County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for a lengthier adjournment. “The decision whether to grant an adjournment lies in the sound discretion of the trial court ..., and the court's exercise of that discretion ‘in denying a request for an adjournment will not be overturned absent a showing of prejudice’ ” ( People v. Adair, 84 A.D.3d 1752, 1754, 922 N.Y.S.2d 696,lv. denied17 N.Y.3d 812, 929 N.Y.S.2d 801, 954 N.E.2d 92). Here, defendant requested an adjournment at the start of the trial because he had received documents from the People the previous evening showing that marked buy money was recovered from defendant upon his arrest after one of the alleged sales. Defense counsel indicated that he wanted to contact defendant's two former attorneys inasmuch as he believed

[982 N.Y.S.2d 681]

that they had been told that no buy money was ever recovered from defendant. The court granted a half-day adjournment, and we conclude that it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to deny defendant's request for a more extended adjournment ( see generally People v. Spears, 64 N.Y.2d 698, 699–700, 485 N.Y.S.2d 521, 474 N.E.2d 1189).

We reject defendant's contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Defendant failed to show the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for defense counsel's waiver of the Huntley and Wade hearings and, indeed, the record establishes that defense counsel waived those hearings in exchange for early discovery of Rosario material ( see People v. Sinkler, 112 A.D.3d 1359, 1361, 979 N.Y.S.2d 209;People v....