People v. Mathieu

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mathieu

19 A.D.3d 219, 796 N.Y.S.2d 522

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

DecidedJune 16, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.3d 219 (People v. Mathieu) 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. Mathieu, 19 A.D.3d 219, 796 N.Y.S.2d 522 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), entered on or about February 5, 2004, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion to vacate a judgment of the same court (Jay Gold, J.), rendered May 28, 1997, convicting him, after a jury trial, of burglary in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court, which made detailed findings that are supported by the record, properly denied defendant’s motion to vacate judgment (see People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 799-780 [1985]). The submissions on the motion, taken together with the trial record, establish that defendant received effective assistance of counsel (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; see also Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]). Even if we were to conclude that trial counsel should have introduced additional evidence in support of a theory of third-party culpability, we would find that the omitted evidence was exceedingly weak (cf. People v Primo, 96 NY2d 351 [2001]), and that its absence did not prejudice defendant’s defense or [220]*220deprive him of a fair trial (see People v Hobot, 84 NY2d 1021, 1024 [1995]). The remaining acts of counsel challenged by defendant on appeal were reasonable strategic choices, and were we to find otherwise, we would find that they did not cause defendant any prejudice. We have considered and rejected defendant’s procedural arguments. Concur—Marlow, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), entered on or about February 5, 2004, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion to vacate a judgment of the same court (Jay Gold, J.), rendered May 28, 1997, convicting him, after a jury trial, of burglary in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court, which made detailed findings that are supported by the record, properly denied defendant’s motion to vacate judgment (see People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 799-780 [1985]). The submissions on the motion, taken together with the trial record, establish that defendant received effective assistance of counsel (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; see also Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]). Even if we were to conclude that trial counsel should have introduced additional evidence in support of a theory of third-party culpability, we would find that the omitted evidence was exceedingly weak (cf. People v Primo, 96 NY2d 351 [2001]), and that its absence did not prejudice defendant’s defense or [220]*220deprive him of a fair trial (see People v Hobot, 84 NY2d 1021, 1024 [1995]). The remaining acts of counsel challenged by defendant on appeal were reasonable strategic choices, and were we to find otherwise, we would find that they did not cause defendant any prejudice. We have considered and rejected defendant’s procedural arguments. Concur—Marlow, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 219, 796 N.Y.S.2d 522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mathieu-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack