People v. Birt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Birt

127 A.D.3d 1223, 5 N.Y.S.3d 895

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

DecidedApril 29, 2015

Docket2013-00955

StatusPublished

This text of 127 A.D.3d 1223 (People v. Birt) 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. Birt, 127 A.D.3d 1223, 5 N.Y.S.3d 895 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dwyer, J.), rendered January 10, 2013, convicting him of man *1224 slaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is without merit. A reasonable view of the evidence shows that the defendant’s conduct in shooting the victim was intentional, not reckless. Thus, trial counsel’s choice not to request a charge of the lesser-included offense of manslaughter in the second degree, with its mens rea of recklessness (see Penal Law §§ 125.15 [1]; 15.05 [3]), did not deprive the defendant of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Illescas, 87 AD3d 699, 700 [2011]; People v Tinch, 72 AD3d 992, 993 [2010]; CPL 300.50 [1], [2]).

Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dwyer, J.), rendered January 10, 2013, convicting him of man *1224 slaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is without merit. A reasonable view of the evidence shows that the defendant’s conduct in shooting the victim was intentional, not reckless. Thus, trial counsel’s choice not to request a charge of the lesser-included offense of manslaughter in the second degree, with its mens rea of recklessness (see Penal Law §§ 125.15 [1]; 15.05 [3]), did not deprive the defendant of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Illescas, 87 AD3d 699, 700 [2011]; People v Tinch, 72 AD3d 992, 993 [2010]; CPL 300.50 [1], [2]).

Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.3d 1223, 5 N.Y.S.3d 895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-birt-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack