People v. Robinson
Opinion
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Francis A. Affronti, J.), rendered April 26, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of driving while intoxicated, a class E felony.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting her following a jury trial of driving while intoxicated as a class E felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192 [3]; 1193 [1] [c] [i] [A]), defendant contends that she was denied effective assistance of counsel based upon defense counsel’s failure to secure her testimony before the grand jury or to make an adequate motion to dismiss the indictment based on the alleged violation of CPL 190.50. We reject that contention. Defendant has not shown that she was prejudiced by her attorney’s failure to effectuate her appearance before the grand jury or that the outcome of the grand jury proceeding would have been different if she had testified (see People v Simmons, 10 NY3d 946, 949 [2008]; People v James, 92 AD3d 1207, 1208 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 962 [2012]), nor has she shown that an ade *1702 quate motion based on the violation of CPL 190.50 had any chance of success (see generally People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]). Furthermore, defendant’s sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2017 NY Slip Op 4650 (People v. Robinson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.