Opinion · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

People v. Lynn

251 A.D.2d 250

Type
Opinion
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Jurisdiction
New York
Date
1998-06-25
Topic
general

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Collins, J.), rendered March 27, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree and attempted murder in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 20 years to life and 6 to 12 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed. The existing record, which defendant has not sought to amplify by way of a CPL 440.10 motion whereby counsel’s strategic decisions could have been explored (see, People v Love, 57 NY2d 998), fails to support defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance. Counsel made appropriate pre-trial and trial motions and applications, vigorously cross-examined the People’s witnesses, and delivered a cogent summation. Defendant has not demonstrated that he was deprived of effective assistance by counsel’s failure to seek a reopened suppression hearing based on the People’s disclosure at the start of trial, since defendant has not shown that the hearing would have been reopened, or *251that a reopened hearing would have resulted in suppression of any evidence. Likewise, defendant has not shown that counsel’s purported omissions with respect to cross-examination of one of the identifying witnesses, and introduction of documentary evidence affected the outcome of the trial (see, People v Hobot, 84 NY2d 1021, 1024).

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed People v. Lynn. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
1 opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Collins, J.), rendered March 27, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree and attempted murder in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 20 years to life and 6 to 12 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The existing record, which defendant has not sought to amplify by way of a CPL 440.10 motion whereby counsel’s strategic decisions could have been explored (see, People v Love, 57 NY2d 998), fails to support defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance. Counsel made appropriate pre-trial and trial motions and applications, vigorously cross-examined the People’s witnesses, and delivered a cogent summation. Defendant has not demonstrated that he was deprived of effective assistance by counsel’s failure to seek a reopened suppression hearing based on the People’s disclosure at the start of trial, since defendant has not shown that the hearing would have been reopened, or *251 that a reopened hearing would have resulted in suppression of any evidence. Likewise, defendant has not shown that counsel’s purported omissions with respect to cross-examination of one of the identifying witnesses, and introduction of documentary evidence affected the outcome of the trial (see, People v Hobot, 84 NY2d 1021, 1024). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.