People v. Villar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Villar

293 A.D.2d 367, 740 N.Y.S.2d 203, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3871

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

DecidedApril 18, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 293 A.D.2d 367 (People v. Villar) 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. Villar, 293 A.D.2d 367, 740 N.Y.S.2d 203, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3871 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Su[368]*368preme Court, New York County (Ronald Zweibel, J.), rendered November 9, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first, second and third degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 15 years to life, six years to life, and 4V2 to 9 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim involves matters of strategy and, in particular, defendant’s personal participation in certain strategic decisions, which cannot be reviewed on the existing record. On the record before us, we find that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714). The record fails to support defendant’s claim that he was prejudiced by his trial counsel’s belated realization that defendant’s voice could be heard on a audiotape containing negotiations for the purchase of drugs by an undercover officer; we note that this tape was only a small portion of the People’s overwhelming proof. Furthermore, with respect to the argument that defense counsel permitted defendant to testify to facts that substantially conceded his guilt, we conclude that defendant’s testimony represented a reasonable, although unsuccessful, attempt to minimize his general involvement with the cooperating accomplice-witness and to distance himself from the charged sales. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Buckley, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.

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

Judgment, Su[368]*368preme Court, New York County (Ronald Zweibel, J.), rendered November 9, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first, second and third degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 15 years to life, six years to life, and 4V2 to 9 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim involves matters of strategy and, in particular, defendant’s personal participation in certain strategic decisions, which cannot be reviewed on the existing record. On the record before us, we find that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714). The record fails to support defendant’s claim that he was prejudiced by his trial counsel’s belated realization that defendant’s voice could be heard on a audiotape containing negotiations for the purchase of drugs by an undercover officer; we note that this tape was only a small portion of the People’s overwhelming proof. Furthermore, with respect to the argument that defense counsel permitted defendant to testify to facts that substantially conceded his guilt, we conclude that defendant’s testimony represented a reasonable, although unsuccessful, attempt to minimize his general involvement with the cooperating accomplice-witness and to distance himself from the charged sales. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Buckley, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 367, 740 N.Y.S.2d 203, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-villar-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack