People v. Pickett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pickett

2017 NY Slip Op 6381, 153 A.D.3d 940, 60 N.Y.S.3d 448

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

DecidedAugust 30, 2017

Docket2013-06473

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 6381 (People v. Pickett) 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. Pickett, 2017 NY Slip Op 6381, 153 A.D.3d 940, 60 N.Y.S.3d 448 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Donnino, J.), rendered June 13, 2013, convicting him of criminal trespass in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that the Supreme Court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry of certain jurors to determine whether they were grossly unqualified to serve is unpreserved for appellate review, because the defendant did not object to the sufficiency of the court’s inquiry or request that any further inquiry be made (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hicks, 6 NY3d 737, 739 [2005]). In any event, the defendant’s claim regarding the sufficiency of the court’s inquiry is without merit (see People v Williams, 127 AD3d 792, 793 [2015]). Additionally, the defendant waived any claim that the court erred in failing to declare a mistrial, or in failing to discharge any of the jurors on the ground of gross disqualification, within the meaning of CPL 270.35 (1) (see People v Wlasiuk, 90 AD3d 1405, 1410 [2011]; People v Hinton, 302 AD2d 1008, 1008-1009 [2003]; cf. People v Prince, 128 AD3d 987, 988 [2015]).

The defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel improperly permitted him to choose whether to move for a mistrial is without merit. The record supports the conclusion that the defendant’s trial counsel made the decision to forgo moving for a mistrial after consulting with him (see People v Colville, 20 NY3d 20, 32 [2012]; People v Butler, 140 AD3d 472, 472-473 [2016]; People v Gottsche, 118 AD3d 1303, 1304-1305 [2014]). Counsel’s representation, viewed in its totality, cannot be considered ineffective (see People v Clark, 28 NY3d 556, 562-563 [2016]).

Eng, P.J., Rivera, Balkin 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, Nassau County (Donnino, J.), rendered June 13, 2013, convicting him of criminal trespass in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that the Supreme Court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry of certain jurors to determine whether they were grossly unqualified to serve is unpreserved for appellate review, because the defendant did not object to the sufficiency of the court’s inquiry or request that any further inquiry be made (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hicks, 6 NY3d 737, 739 [2005]). In any event, the defendant’s claim regarding the sufficiency of the court’s inquiry is without merit (see People v Williams, 127 AD3d 792, 793 [2015]). Additionally, the defendant waived any claim that the court erred in failing to declare a mistrial, or in failing to discharge any of the jurors on the ground of gross disqualification, within the meaning of CPL 270.35 (1) (see People v Wlasiuk, 90 AD3d 1405, 1410 [2011]; People v Hinton, 302 AD2d 1008, 1008-1009 [2003]; cf. People v Prince, 128 AD3d 987, 988 [2015]).

The defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel improperly permitted him to choose whether to move for a mistrial is without merit. The record supports the conclusion that the defendant’s trial counsel made the decision to forgo moving for a mistrial after consulting with him (see People v Colville, 20 NY3d 20, 32 [2012]; People v Butler, 140 AD3d 472, 472-473 [2016]; People v Gottsche, 118 AD3d 1303, 1304-1305 [2014]). Counsel’s representation, viewed in its totality, cannot be considered ineffective (see People v Clark, 28 NY3d 556, 562-563 [2016]).

Eng, P.J., Rivera, Balkin and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 6381, 153 A.D.3d 940, 60 N.Y.S.3d 448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pickett-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack