People v. Maddox

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Maddox

213 A.D.2d 159, 624 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2326

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 2, 1995·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Vincent Vitale, J.), rendered April 21, 1993 which, after a jury trial, convicted defendant of robbery in the first degree and sentenced him to a prison term of from 4 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

After reviewing the trial record we cannot say that the defense theory, that defendant was the innocent victim of overzealous police action, was ineffective, or that defendant’s attorney failed to provide meaningful representation sufficient to satisfy the constitutional requirement (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147; People v Jackson, 52 NY2d 1027, 1029). The foregoing determination is made without the benefit of knowing what was in defense counsel’s mind, a point which may have been developed had an appropriate post-judgment motion been made pursuant to CPL 440.10 (People v Jones, 55 NY2d 771, 773).

To the extent that defense counsel’s opening statement may have suggested that defendant had the burden of proof to demonstrate his innocence, any prejudice caused thereby was eliminated by the court’s subsequent instructions regarding the burden of proof. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Rubin, Asch, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Vincent Vitale, J.), rendered April 21, 1993 which, after a jury trial, convicted defendant of robbery in the first degree and sentenced him to a prison term of from 4 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

After reviewing the trial record we cannot say that the defense theory, that defendant was the innocent victim of overzealous police action, was ineffective, or that defendant’s attorney failed to provide meaningful representation sufficient to satisfy the constitutional requirement (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147; People v Jackson, 52 NY2d 1027, 1029). The foregoing determination is made without the benefit of knowing what was in defense counsel’s mind, a point which may have been developed had an appropriate post-judgment motion been made pursuant to CPL 440.10 (People v Jones, 55 NY2d 771, 773).

To the extent that defense counsel’s opening statement may have suggested that defendant had the burden of proof to demonstrate his innocence, any prejudice caused thereby was eliminated by the court’s subsequent instructions regarding the burden of proof. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Rubin, Asch, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

People v. Maddox, 213 A.D.2d 159, 624 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2326 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

213 A.D.2d 159 (People v. Maddox) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related