Summary
In People v. Ford, 205 AD2d 310, 311 (1st Dept. 1994), the First Department summarily answered that question, holding that "[d]efendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel by his counsel's appropriate strategic concessions in summation..., notwithstanding defendant's disagreement with counsel's strategy."
Summary of this case from People v. VasquezOpinion
June 2, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Carey, J.).
Contrary to defendant's contention, there was sufficient corroboration of accomplice testimony (People v. Breland, 83 N.Y.2d 286), especially since nonaccomplice eyewitnesses directly implicated defendant in aspects of both the murder and the drug conspiracy.
Nor is there merit to defendant's contention that his motion to suppress physical evidence was improperly denied. The search of the car flowed directly from the lawful discovery of bullets and drugs on defendant's person (People v. Ellis, 62 N.Y.2d 393) and was completely attenuated from the "seizure", if any, of the car (People v. Arnau, 58 N.Y.2d 27, cert denied 468 U.S. 1217), which was, in any event, a reasonable exercise of police discretion (see, Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 375).
Defendant was not prejudiced by his absence from a portion of a Sandoval proceeding, where the only issues resolved with finality were resolved in defendant's favor (People v. Favor, 82 N.Y.2d 254, 268).
We find no error in the reception of evidence of defendant's drug activity outside the time frame of, but closely connected to, the charged drug conspiracy (People v. Cunningham, 48 N.Y.2d 938, 940; see also, People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350, 360-361); nor of a witness's cooperation agreement (People v Cherry, 161 A.D.2d 185, 186-187, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 854); nor of photographs of the victim's body (People v. Stevens, 76 N.Y.2d 833, 835). Admission of evidence that defendant's wife purchased a car for cash, though error, since it was irrelevant, was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
Defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel by his counsel's appropriate strategic concessions in summation (People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 799), notwithstanding defendant's disagreement with counsel's strategy (see, People v. Ferguson, 67 N.Y.2d 383, 390).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, and find them largely unpreserved and without merit.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Wallach, Ross, Rubin and Tom, JJ.