People v. Sumter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sumter

2016 NY Slip Op 8379, 145 A.D.3d 803, 41 N.Y.S.3d 913

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

DecidedDecember 14, 2016

Docket2015-02922

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 8379 (People v. Sumter) 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. Sumter, 2016 NY Slip Op 8379, 145 A.D.3d 803, 41 N.Y.S.3d 913 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Griffin, J.), rendered March 18, 2015, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Paynter, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his attorney was not ineffective for the single alleged error of declining to make an oral argument at the suppression hearing (cf. People v Clermont, 22 NY3d 931, 933 [2013]; People v Johnson, 37 AD3d 363, 363-364 [2007]). The record indicates that his attorney’s representation was meaningful and competent throughout the hearing and trial, including cross-examination of witnesses that focused on the identification issue (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]). Moreover, an attorney is not ineffective for failing to make an argument that, as here, has little or no chance of success (see People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

*804 The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Roman and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

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

by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Griffin, J.), rendered March 18, 2015, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Paynter, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his attorney was not ineffective for the single alleged error of declining to make an oral argument at the suppression hearing (cf. People v Clermont, 22 NY3d 931, 933 [2013]; People v Johnson, 37 AD3d 363, 363-364 [2007]). The record indicates that his attorney’s representation was meaningful and competent throughout the hearing and trial, including cross-examination of witnesses that focused on the identification issue (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]). Moreover, an attorney is not ineffective for failing to make an argument that, as here, has little or no chance of success (see People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

*804 The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Roman and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 8379, 145 A.D.3d 803, 41 N.Y.S.3d 913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sumter-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack