People v. Hightower

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hightower

35 A.D.3d 884, 825 N.Y.S.2d 381

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 26, 2006·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunlop, J), rendered April 28, 20005, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is without merit. A review of the circumstances in totality as of the time of the representation reveals that the defendant was afforded meaningful representation (see People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 565 [2000]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). The defendant failed to demonstrate that there were no strategic or other legitimate explanations for his attorney’s alleged shortcomings, and therefore failed to overcome the presumption that “counsel acted in a competent manner and exercised professional judgment” (People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; see People v Taylor, 1 NY3d 174, 177 [2003]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]). Miller, J.P., Crane, Lifson and Dillon, 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, Queens County (Dunlop, J), rendered April 28, 20005, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is without merit. A review of the circumstances in totality as of the time of the representation reveals that the defendant was afforded meaningful representation (see People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 565 [2000]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). The defendant failed to demonstrate that there were no strategic or other legitimate explanations for his attorney’s alleged shortcomings, and therefore failed to overcome the presumption that “counsel acted in a competent manner and exercised professional judgment” (People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; see People v Taylor, 1 NY3d 174, 177 [2003]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]). Miller, J.P., Crane, Lifson and Dillon, JJ., concur.

People v. Hightower, 35 A.D.3d 884, 825 N.Y.S.2d 381 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

35 A.D.3d 884 (People v. Hightower) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related