People v. Finch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Finch

199 A.D.2d 278, 604 N.Y.S.2d 222

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

DecidedDecember 6, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 199 A.D.2d 278 (People v. Finch) 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. Finch, 199 A.D.2d 278, 604 N.Y.S.2d 222 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Goodman, J.), rendered January 10, 1990, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence, in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must overcome the strong presumption that defense counsel rendered effective assistance (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137). Moreover, the defendant must show that, but for counsel’s allegedly deficient performance, the outcome of the criminal action would have been different (see, People v Cuesta, 177 AD2d 639).

Although trial counsel failed to object to the bolstering testimony of two police officers, we find that, standing alone, this omission did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Throughout the trial, the defense counsel effectively cross-examined the People’s witnesses, raised appropriate objections, and made cogent arguments in his summation by bringing out the weakness in the People’s case and emphasizing his contention that the defendant was the victim of misidentification. Viewing counsel’s conduct in its entirety, the defendant was not deprived of effective assistance (see, People v Johnson, 184 AD2d 732; cf., People v Winston, 134 AD2d 546).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Balletta and Joy, 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 County Court, Nassau County (Goodman, J.), rendered January 10, 1990, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence, in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must overcome the strong presumption that defense counsel rendered effective assistance (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137). Moreover, the defendant must show that, but for counsel’s allegedly deficient performance, the outcome of the criminal action would have been different (see, People v Cuesta, 177 AD2d 639).

Although trial counsel failed to object to the bolstering testimony of two police officers, we find that, standing alone, this omission did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Throughout the trial, the defense counsel effectively cross-examined the People’s witnesses, raised appropriate objections, and made cogent arguments in his summation by bringing out the weakness in the People’s case and emphasizing his contention that the defendant was the victim of misidentification. Viewing counsel’s conduct in its entirety, the defendant was not deprived of effective assistance (see, People v Johnson, 184 AD2d 732; cf., People v Winston, 134 AD2d 546).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Balletta and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 278, 604 N.Y.S.2d 222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-finch-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack