People v. Strempack
This text of 525 N.E.2d 746 (People v. Strempack) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
*1016 OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defense counsel’s failure to make a suppression motion prior to negotiating a plea bargain for his client does not, on this record, constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Although defendant might have prevailed on such a motion, success was by no means certain. Had the suppression motion been denied, it is doubtful that the favorable bargain counsel obtained for defendant would still have been available. Thus, defense counsel’s representation was consistent with a legitimate and ultimately successful strategy (see, People v Benn, 68 NY2d 941, 942; People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705).
Defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
525 N.E.2d 746, 71 N.Y.2d 1015, 530 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 1004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-strempack-ny-1988.