PEOPLE & C., RESPONDENT, v. CHARLES E. RYAN, APPELLANT.
90 N.Y.2d 822, 682 N.E.2d 977, 660 N.Y.S.2d 376 (1997).
June 5, 1997
3 No. 112 (1997 NY Int. 93)
Decided June 5, 1997
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
______________________________________________________________________
Brian D. Premo, for appellant.
George H. Barber, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant was convicted of assault in the first degree (Penal Law
120.10) and leaving the scene of an incident without reporting
(Vehicle & Traffic Law § 600(2)(a)) based upon the defendant's
striking and seriously injuring a pedestrian with the car he was
driving. The Appellate Division affirmed his conviction, one Justice
dissenting (__ AD2d __).
Upon examining all of the circumstances of this case, "viewed in
totality and as of the time of the representation," we conclude that
defendant was not deprived of meaningful representation (see, People v
Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). Defense counsel cross-examined key
prosecution witnesses, presented defendant's testimony in support of
an alibi defense, and gave a detailed summation highlighting potential
infirmities in the People's evidence. Moreover, when viewed in light
of the trial as a whole, the actions of defense counsel of which
defendant now complains could be attributed to tactical trial
decisions. Thus, defendant has failed to establish that he was denied
his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel (see,
People v Rivera, 70 NY2d 705, 709; People v Baldi, supra).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining grounds for seeking a new trial
and find them to be either unpreserved or without merit.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone,
SNIPPETS:
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
Brian D. Premo, for appellant.
George H. Barber, for respondent.
Defendant was convicted of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10) and leaving the
The Appellate Division affirmed his conviction, one Justice dissenting.
Upon examining all of the circumstances of this case, "viewed in totality and as of the time
Defense counsel cross-examined key prosecution witnesses, presented defendant's testimony in
Moreover, when viewed in light of the trial as a whole, the actions of defense counsel of
Thus, defendant has failed to establish that he was denied his constitutional right to
We have reviewed defendant's remaining grounds for seeking a new trial and find them to be
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.
|
