People v. Barro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Barro

2016 NY Slip Op 7271, 144 A.D.3d 448, 39 N.Y.S.3d 790

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 3, 2016

Docket2135 5453/12

StatusPublished

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 7271 (People v. Barro) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Barro, 2016 NY Slip Op 7271, 144 A.D.3d 448, 39 N.Y.S.3d 790 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Larry R.C. Stephen, J.), rendered January 17, 2014, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and sentencing him to a conditional discharge for a period of 3 years and a $1,000 fine, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on his counsel’s failure to challenge the use of an out-of-state conviction to elevate a misdemeanor to a felony charge is unreviewable on direct appeal, because the record does not explain counsel’s reasons for declining to raise such a challenge (see People v Diaz, 115 AD3d 483, 484 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1036 [2014]; People v Rincon, 62 AD3d 574, 575 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 748 [2009]). Thus, since defendant has not filed a CPL 440.10 motion, the merits of the ineffectiveness claims may not be addressed on appeal. Alternatively, to the extent the record permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]).

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Feinman, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Larry R.C. Stephen, J.), rendered January 17, 2014, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and sentencing him to a conditional discharge for a period of 3 years and a $1,000 fine, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on his counsel’s failure to challenge the use of an out-of-state conviction to elevate a misdemeanor to a felony charge is unreviewable on direct appeal, because the record does not explain counsel’s reasons for declining to raise such a challenge (see People v Diaz, 115 AD3d 483, 484 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1036 [2014]; People v Rincon, 62 AD3d 574, 575 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 748 [2009]). Thus, since defendant has not filed a CPL 440.10 motion, the merits of the ineffectiveness claims may not be addressed on appeal. Alternatively, to the extent the record permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]).

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Feinman, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 7271, 144 A.D.3d 448, 39 N.Y.S.3d 790, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-barro-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack