From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Arriaga

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 1, 2011
90 A.D.3d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

2011-12-1

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anthony ARRIAGA, Defendant–Appellant.

Murray Richman, Bronx (Brian Alexander Jacobs of counsel), for appellant. Anthony Arriaga, appellant pro se.


Murray Richman, Bronx (Brian Alexander Jacobs of counsel), for appellant. Anthony Arriaga, appellant pro se.

Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Christopher J. Blira–Koessler of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Thomas Farber, J.), rendered January 19, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning identification and credibility, including its evaluation of alleged inconsistencies in testimony.

Defendant's challenges to the People's summation are unpreserved ( see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 911, 828 N.Y.S.2d 274, 861 N.E.2d 89 [2006] ), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal ( see People v. D'Alessandro, 184 A.D.2d 114, 118–119, 591 N.Y.S.2d 1001 [1992], lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 884, 597 N.Y.S.2d 945, 613 N.E.2d 977 [1993] ). To the extent the summation contained any improprieties, the court took curative actions that were sufficient to prevent any prejudice ( see id.).

Defendant's pro se ineffective assistance of counsel claims are unreviewable on direct appeal because they generally involve matters outside the record concerning counsel's preparation and strategy ( see People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 709, 530 N.Y.S.2d 52, 525 N.E.2d 698 [1988]; People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 998, 457 N.Y.S.2d 238, 443 N.E.2d 486 [1982] ). 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 N.Y.2d 708, 713–714, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 [1998]; see also *554 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 [1984] ). We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining pro se claims.

TOM, J.P., ANDRIAS, CATTERSON, ABDUS–SALAAM, ROMÁN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Arriaga

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 1, 2011
90 A.D.3d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

People v. Arriaga

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anthony ARRIAGA…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 1, 2011

Citations

90 A.D.3d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 8676
933 N.Y.S.2d 553

Citing Cases

Arriaga v. Warden, Sing Sing Corr. Facility

Arriaga's Direct AppealOn December 1, 2011, the New York Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously…

People v. Arriaga

Jones1st Dept.: 90 A.D.3d 416, 933 N.Y.S.2d 553 (Bronx) Jones,…