Opinion · New York Court of Appeals
People v. McDaniel
13 N.Y.3d 751
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- New York Court of Appeals
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Date
- 2009-09-01
- Topic
- litigation
OPINION OF THE COURT Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Because defense counsel’s decision not to seek dismissal of the robbery in the first degree charge for insufficient evidence would not have resulted in a dismissal of that charge (see People v Lopez, 73 NY2d 214, 219-220 [1989]; People v Baskerville, 60 NY2d 374, 380-381 [1983]), defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is meritless. Furthermore, the attorney’s conduct did not consist of “ ‘egregious and prejudicial’ error such that defendant did not receive a fair trial” (People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713 [1998], citing People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184, 188-189 [1994]), but rather “viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal[s] that the attorney provided meaningful representation” (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed People v. McDaniel. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 10 opinions
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Because defense counsel’s decision not to seek dismissal of the robbery in the first degree charge for insufficient evidence would not have resulted in a dismissal of that charge (see People v Lopez, 73 NY2d 214, 219-220 [1989]; People v Baskerville, 60 NY2d 374, 380-381 [1983]), defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is meritless. Furthermore, the attorney’s conduct did not consist of “ ‘egregious and prejudicial’ error such that defendant did not receive a fair trial” (People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713 [1998], citing People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184, 188-189 [1994]), but rather “viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal[s] that the attorney provided meaningful representation” (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed in a memorandum.