People v. Thompson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Thompson

124 A.D.3d 448, 1 N.Y.S.3d 72

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 2015

Docket13935 5110/12

StatusPublished

This text of 124 A.D.3d 448 (People v. Thompson) 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. Thompson, 124 A.D.3d 448, 1 N.Y.S.3d 72 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered January 15, 2014, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of falsifying business records in the first degree and offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, and sentencing him to a fine of $750 and three days of community service, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims are unreviewable on direct appeal because they generally involve matters not reflected in, or fully explained by, the record (see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; People v Love, 57 NY2d 998 [1982]). Accordingly, since defendant has not made a CPL 440.10 motion, the merits of the ineffectiveness claims may not be addressed on appeal. In the alternative, to the extent the existing record permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]).

Defendant’s claim that the evidence supporting the falsifying business records conviction was legally insufficient is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. The evidence demonstrated that defendant made a false entry on a form *449 regarding his purported disposal of a firearm, and that he did so with the intent to commit or conceal his unlawful possession of the firearm (see Penal Law § 175.10). The People were not required to establish that defendant committed, or was convicted of, the crime he intended to conceal (see People v McCumiskey, 12 AD3d 1145 [2004]; see also People v Taveras, 12 NY3d 21 [2009]).

Concur — Tom, J.R, Friedman, Acosta, Saxe and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered January 15, 2014, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of falsifying business records in the first degree and offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, and sentencing him to a fine of $750 and three days of community service, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims are unreviewable on direct appeal because they generally involve matters not reflected in, or fully explained by, the record (see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; People v Love, 57 NY2d 998 [1982]). Accordingly, since defendant has not made a CPL 440.10 motion, the merits of the ineffectiveness claims may not be addressed on appeal. In the alternative, to the extent the existing record permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]).

Defendant’s claim that the evidence supporting the falsifying business records conviction was legally insufficient is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. The evidence demonstrated that defendant made a false entry on a form *449 regarding his purported disposal of a firearm, and that he did so with the intent to commit or conceal his unlawful possession of the firearm (see Penal Law § 175.10). The People were not required to establish that defendant committed, or was convicted of, the crime he intended to conceal (see People v McCumiskey, 12 AD3d 1145 [2004]; see also People v Taveras, 12 NY3d 21 [2009]).

Concur — Tom, J.R, Friedman, Acosta, Saxe and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.3d 448, 1 N.Y.S.3d 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-thompson-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack