People v. McIntosh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McIntosh

127 A.D.3d 993, 4 N.Y.S.3d 918

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

DecidedApril 15, 2015

Docket2013-09061

StatusPublished

This text of 127 A.D.3d 993 (People v. McIntosh) 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. McIntosh, 127 A.D.3d 993, 4 N.Y.S.3d 918 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Del Giudice, J.), rendered September 16, 2013, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel, at the conclusion of a suppression hearing, withdrew his motion to suppress a showup identification and, during the trial, failed to object to the complainant’s in-court identification of him as one of the men who robbed him. This contention is without merit. The evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this case, viewed in totality and as of the time of representation, reveal that trial counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277, 283-284 [2004]; People v Berroa, 99 NY2d 134, 138 [2002]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). The defendant failed to demonstrate that his counsel, without “reasonable explanation,” failed to raise a “clear-cut and completely dispositive” issue (People v Turner, 5 NY3d 476, 481 [2005]; see People v Howard, 22 NY3d 388, 400 [2013]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d at 712).

Mastro, J.P., Austin, Cohen and Barros, 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, Kings County (Del Giudice, J.), rendered September 16, 2013, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel, at the conclusion of a suppression hearing, withdrew his motion to suppress a showup identification and, during the trial, failed to object to the complainant’s in-court identification of him as one of the men who robbed him. This contention is without merit. The evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this case, viewed in totality and as of the time of representation, reveal that trial counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277, 283-284 [2004]; People v Berroa, 99 NY2d 134, 138 [2002]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). The defendant failed to demonstrate that his counsel, without “reasonable explanation,” failed to raise a “clear-cut and completely dispositive” issue (People v Turner, 5 NY3d 476, 481 [2005]; see People v Howard, 22 NY3d 388, 400 [2013]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d at 712).

Mastro, J.P., Austin, Cohen and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.3d 993, 4 N.Y.S.3d 918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcintosh-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack