People v. Canty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Canty

32 A.D.3d 1043, 820 N.Y.S.2d 896

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

DecidedSeptember 26, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 32 A.D.3d 1043 (People v. Canty) 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. Canty, 32 A.D.3d 1043, 820 N.Y.S.2d 896 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J), entered September 27, 2004, which denied, without a hearing, his motion pursuant to CEL 440.10 to vacate a judgment of the same court rendered November 18, 1999, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[1044]*1044Ordered that the order is affirmed.

In deciding a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10, the trial court need not hold a hearing if the parties’ submissions are sufficient to render a determination (see CPL 440.30 [1], [4]; People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 799 [1985]; People v Demetsenare, 14 AD3d 792, 793 [2005]). The defendant must show that a hearing would establish material nonrecord facts that would entitle him to relief (see People v Satterfield, supra; People v Demetsenare, supra). The defendant made no showing that his trial counsel’s failure to contact additional alibi witnesses prejudiced his case and deprived him of meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712-714 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). At trial, defense counsel presented an alibi defense and made forceful arguments that the defendant had been misidentified. Counsel made various pretrial motions, vigorously cross-examined the People’s witnesses, and gave a cogent summation highlighting potential infirmities in the People’s evidence (see People v Taylor, 1 NY3d 174, 177 [2003]; People v Ryan, 90 NY2d 822, 823 [1997]; People v Cabezudo, 303 AD2d 596 [2003]; People v McDonald, 255 AD2d 688 [1998]). Under these circumstances, counsel’s alleged errors, as raised by the defendant in his moving papers, were insufficient to constitute a deprivation of meaningful representation (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]; People v Baldi, supra). Florio, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J), entered September 27, 2004, which denied, without a hearing, his motion pursuant to CEL 440.10 to vacate a judgment of the same court rendered November 18, 1999, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[1044]*1044Ordered that the order is affirmed.

In deciding a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10, the trial court need not hold a hearing if the parties’ submissions are sufficient to render a determination (see CPL 440.30 [1], [4]; People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 799 [1985]; People v Demetsenare, 14 AD3d 792, 793 [2005]). The defendant must show that a hearing would establish material nonrecord facts that would entitle him to relief (see People v Satterfield, supra; People v Demetsenare, supra). The defendant made no showing that his trial counsel’s failure to contact additional alibi witnesses prejudiced his case and deprived him of meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712-714 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). At trial, defense counsel presented an alibi defense and made forceful arguments that the defendant had been misidentified. Counsel made various pretrial motions, vigorously cross-examined the People’s witnesses, and gave a cogent summation highlighting potential infirmities in the People’s evidence (see People v Taylor, 1 NY3d 174, 177 [2003]; People v Ryan, 90 NY2d 822, 823 [1997]; People v Cabezudo, 303 AD2d 596 [2003]; People v McDonald, 255 AD2d 688 [1998]). Under these circumstances, counsel’s alleged errors, as raised by the defendant in his moving papers, were insufficient to constitute a deprivation of meaningful representation (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]; People v Baldi, supra). Florio, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.3d 1043, 820 N.Y.S.2d 896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-canty-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack