People v Robinson

People v Robinson 2017 NY Slip Op 07186 Decided on October 12, 2017 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 12, 2017
Tom, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Singh, Moulton, JJ.
4656 3724/14

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Sidney Robinson, Defendant-Appellant.

Rosemary Herbert, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Margaret E. Knight of counsel), for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Luis Morales of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Abraham Clott, J.), rendered July 2, 2015, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of eight years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims are unreviewable on direct appeal because they involve matters not reflected in, or fully explained by, the record, including counsel's strategic decisions (see People v Rivera , 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; People v Love , 57 NY2d 998 [1982]), and we reject defendant's argument that the unexpanded record is sufficient to review these claims. 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 has not shown that any of counsel's alleged deficiencies regarding his cross-examination of a police witness and various other matters fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, or that, viewed individually or collectively, they deprived defendant of a fair trial or affected the outcome of the case.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: OCTOBER 12, 2017

CLERK