Opinion
07-13-2016
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Julio SANDOVAL, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, NY (A. Alexander Donn of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Ellen C. Abbot, and Jonathan V. Brewer of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, NY (A. Alexander Donn of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Ellen C. Abbot, and Jonathan V. Brewer of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Knopf, J.), rendered April 23, 2012, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he received the effective assistance of counsel under both the state standard (see People v. Wragg, 26 N.Y.3d 403, 409, 23 N.Y.S.3d 600, 44 N.E.3d 898 ; People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 ) and the federal standard (see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 ). There existed a legitimate, strategic reason for defense counsel's decision to agree to a collective, rather than individual, inquiry of prospective jurors who heard a potentially prejudicial comment made by another prospective juror. In any event, viewing counsel's performance in its totality, any error counsel made in connection with the prospective juror's comment or in failing to object to the Supreme Court's instructions in that regard did not deprive the defendant of meaningful representation under the state standard (see People v. Blake, 24 N.Y.3d 78, 81, 996 N.Y.S.2d 585, 21 N.E.3d 214 ; People v. Summerville, 138 A.D.3d 897, 29 N.Y.S.3d 487 ; People v. Diallo, 132 A.D.3d 1010, 1010–1011, 18 N.Y.S.3d 440 ), and applying the federal standard, there was no reasonable probability that any error affected the outcome of the case (see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 691–692, 104 S.Ct. 2052 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
MASTRO, J.P., AUSTIN, SGROI and MALTESE, JJ., concur.