People v Rodriguez

Annotate this Case
People v Rodriguez 2018 NY Slip Op 04031 Decided on June 7, 2018 Court of Appeals Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on June 7, 2018
No. 111 SSM 13

[*1]The People & c., Respondent,

v

William Rodriguez, Appellant.



Submitted by Michael J. Hutter, for appellant.

Submitted by Sheila L. Bautista, for respondent.



MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim lacks merit. Even assuming that counsel failed to assert a meritorious Confrontation Clause challenge, the alleged omission does not "involve an issue that [was] so clear-cut and dispositive that no reasonable defense counsel would have failed to assert it," and defendant has not demonstrated on the record "that the decision to forgo the contention could not have been grounded in a legitimate trial strategy" (People v McGee, 20 NY3d 513, 518 [2013]; see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; cf. People v Turner, 5 NY3d 476, 481 [2005]).

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Stein, Fahey, Garcia, Wilson and Feinman concur.

Decided June 7, 2018