People v. Pacheco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pacheco

50 A.D.3d 1063, 855 N.Y.S.2d 676

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

DecidedApril 22, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 50 A.D.3d 1063 (People v. Pacheco) 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. Pacheco, 50 A.D.3d 1063, 855 N.Y.S.2d 676 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Guzman, J.), dated June 30, 2006, which denied, without a hearing, his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate a judgment of the same court (Bárbaro, J.), rendered January 10, 2001, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim regarding ineffective assistance of trial counsel could have been raised on direct appeal from the judgment of conviction (see CPL 440.10 [2] [a], [c]). In any event, the claim is without merit because the defendant did not establish that counsel’s representation was deficient (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]). Specifically, the defendant did not establish that counsel was deficient in failing to move to dismiss the count charging him with depraved indifference murder on the ground that the facts supported a finding of intent rather than recklessness since, at the time of the trial, counsel was acting in accord with the law defining depraved indifference murder (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 350 [2007]; People v Paisley, 93 NY2d 1024 [1999]). Mastro, J.P., Santucci, Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Guzman, J.), dated June 30, 2006, which denied, without a hearing, his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate a judgment of the same court (Bárbaro, J.), rendered January 10, 2001, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim regarding ineffective assistance of trial counsel could have been raised on direct appeal from the judgment of conviction (see CPL 440.10 [2] [a], [c]). In any event, the claim is without merit because the defendant did not establish that counsel’s representation was deficient (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]). Specifically, the defendant did not establish that counsel was deficient in failing to move to dismiss the count charging him with depraved indifference murder on the ground that the facts supported a finding of intent rather than recklessness since, at the time of the trial, counsel was acting in accord with the law defining depraved indifference murder (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 350 [2007]; People v Paisley, 93 NY2d 1024 [1999]). Mastro, J.P., Santucci, Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.3d 1063, 855 N.Y.S.2d 676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pacheco-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack