People v. Longchamp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Longchamp

147 A.D.2d 659, 538 N.Y.S.2d 60, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2031

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 147 A.D.2d 659 (People v. Longchamp) 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. Longchamp, 147 A.D.2d 659, 538 N.Y.S.2d 60, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2031 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Meyer-son, J.), rendered March 26, 1981, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and bribery in the second degree (two counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant, who was represented by an attorney, executed a formal written waiver of a jury trial in open court after an inquiry by the court as to his understanding of the consequences of his choice (see, People v Aponte, 144 AD2d 679; People v Harris, 133 AD2d 649, 650, lv denied 70 NY2d 932). Thus, we are satisfied that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to a jury trial (see generally, People v Davis, 49 NY2d 114).

Defense counsel’s failure to move for a Huntley or Mapp hearing does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Since the defendant conceded, in a taped conversation, that Detective Daly had probably seen the gun, the Mapp hearing would have been futile (see, People v Boero, 117 AD2d 814). Moreover, defense counsel’s decision not to seek a Huntley hearing was a legitimate part of his trial strategy, which involved demonstrating that the police officers entrapped the defendant into making the bribe offer (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137; People v Smith, 126 AD2d 863). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Meyer-son, J.), rendered March 26, 1981, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and bribery in the second degree (two counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant, who was represented by an attorney, executed a formal written waiver of a jury trial in open court after an inquiry by the court as to his understanding of the consequences of his choice (see, People v Aponte, 144 AD2d 679; People v Harris, 133 AD2d 649, 650, lv denied 70 NY2d 932). Thus, we are satisfied that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to a jury trial (see generally, People v Davis, 49 NY2d 114).

Defense counsel’s failure to move for a Huntley or Mapp hearing does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Since the defendant conceded, in a taped conversation, that Detective Daly had probably seen the gun, the Mapp hearing would have been futile (see, People v Boero, 117 AD2d 814). Moreover, defense counsel’s decision not to seek a Huntley hearing was a legitimate part of his trial strategy, which involved demonstrating that the police officers entrapped the defendant into making the bribe offer (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137; People v Smith, 126 AD2d 863). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 A.D.2d 659, 538 N.Y.S.2d 60, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2031, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-longchamp-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack