People v. Woodrich
| Decision Date | 03 February 1995 |
| Citation | 212 A.D.2d 998,622 N.Y.S.2d 1018 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Harold WOODRICH, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Mary Ann Bliznik, Batavia, for appellant.
Robert C. Noonan by David Gann, Batavia, for respondent.
Before GREEN, J.P., and PINE, WESLEY, DAVIS and BOEHM, JJ.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of County Court convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of rape in the first degree, burglary in the second degree, sexual abuse in the first degree and petit larceny. Defendant contends that he was denied his right to be present at all material stages of the trial because a pretrial conference was conducted in his absence. We reject that contention. That "conference involved only questions of law or procedure and defendant's presence was not required" (People v. Velasco, 77 N.Y.2d 469, 472, 568 N.Y.S.2d 721, 570 N.E.2d 1070; see, People v. Daniel, 206 A.D.2d 856, 615 N.Y.S.2d 170). We also reject the contention that reversal is required because the People did not disclose, prior to trial, the inconclusive results of laboratory tests conducted on fluid obtained from the victim's genital area (see, People v. Owens, 108 A.D.2d 1014, 485 N.Y.S.2d 584). Further, defense counsel's failure to arrange independent testing of that fluid sample does not, without more, constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant has not demonstrated the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanation for such failure (see, People v. Yourdon, 142 A.D.2d 998, 530 N.Y.S.2d 419 lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 791, 536 N.Y.S.2d 751, 533 N.E.2d 681).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in the pro se supplemental brief, and conclude that they are without merit.
Judgment unanimously affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Howard
...to find latent fingerprints on one of the plastic bags delivered to the undercover officer was not exculpatory (see, People v. Woodrich, 212 A.D.2d 998, 622 N.Y.S.2d 1018, lv. denied 85 N.Y.2d 945, 627 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 651 N.E.2d 932; People v. Owens, 108 A.D.2d 1014, 485 N.Y.S.2d 584). In an......
-
People v. Muscoreil
...only questions of law or procedure (see, People v. Velasco, 77 N.Y.2d 469, 472, 568 N.Y.S.2d 721, 570 N.E.2d 1070; People v. Woodrich, 212 A.D.2d 998, 622 N.Y.S.2d 1018; People v. Daniel, 206 A.D.2d 856, 615 N.Y.S.2d 170, lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 906, 621 N.Y.S.2d 524, 645 N.E.2d 1224). The evi......
- People v. Payne
-
People v. Woodrich
...degree (Penal Law § 130.35[1] ). This Court previously affirmed the judgment convicting defendant of those crimes ( People v. Woodrich, 212 A.D.2d 998, 622 N.Y.S.2d 1018, lv. denied 85 N.Y.2d 945, 627 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 651 N.E.2d 932). County Court properly denied the motion “because defendant......