People v. Koonce

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Koonce

68 A.D.3d 424, 891 N.Y.2d 24

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

DecidedDecember 3, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 68 A.D.3d 424 (People v. Koonce) 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. Koonce, 68 A.D.3d 424, 891 N.Y.2d 24 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to vacate the [425]*425judgment, made on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. The submissions on the motion, taken together with the trial record, establish that defendant received effective assistance under both the state and federal standards (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; see also Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]). Counsel reasonably declined to use recorded conversations between the victim and defendant’s cousin for impeachment purposes since aspects of the tape were damaging to defendant and would have opened the door to additional evidence of defendant’s guilt (see People v Alicea, 229 AD2d 80, 89 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 890 [1997]). Counsel could have reasonably concluded that the disadvantages of using this tape outweighed its impeachment value. Furthermore, counsel was not obligated to make the same choice as the attorney who represented defendant at his first trial, which ended in a hung jury; the second attorney could have reasonably concluded that a different tactic was more likely to lead to an acquittal. In any event, even if counsel should have used the tape, defendant has not shown that counsel’s failure to do so affected the outcome.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Andrias, Nardelli and Richter, JJ.

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

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to vacate the [425]*425judgment, made on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. The submissions on the motion, taken together with the trial record, establish that defendant received effective assistance under both the state and federal standards (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; see also Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]). Counsel reasonably declined to use recorded conversations between the victim and defendant’s cousin for impeachment purposes since aspects of the tape were damaging to defendant and would have opened the door to additional evidence of defendant’s guilt (see People v Alicea, 229 AD2d 80, 89 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 890 [1997]). Counsel could have reasonably concluded that the disadvantages of using this tape outweighed its impeachment value. Furthermore, counsel was not obligated to make the same choice as the attorney who represented defendant at his first trial, which ended in a hung jury; the second attorney could have reasonably concluded that a different tactic was more likely to lead to an acquittal. In any event, even if counsel should have used the tape, defendant has not shown that counsel’s failure to do so affected the outcome.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Andrias, Nardelli and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.3d 424, 891 N.Y.2d 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-koonce-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack