Opinion
2013–680 OR CR.
05-19-2015
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Julio J. ARROYO, Jr., Appellant.
Opinion
Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Middletown, Orange County (Robert F. Moson, J.), rendered March 20, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), attempted assault in the third degree, and harassment in the second degree.
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Defendant's conviction stemmed from an incident that occurred in the parking lot of a drugstore, during which defendant punched the complainant twice in the head. The complainant's girlfriend stood near the complainant during the incident. Defendant contends that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel.
Defendant failed to prove that his trial counsel lacked any strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel's alleged shortcomings (see People v. Baker, 14 N.Y.3d 266, 270–271 [2010] ; People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712 [1998] ; People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 709 [1988] ; People v. Starr, 114 A.D.3d 813, 814 [2014] ; People v. Arnold, 85 A.D.3d 1330, 1332–1333 [2011] ; cf. People v. Oathout, 21 N.Y.3d 127 [2013] ; People v. Miller, 11 A.D.3d 729 [2004] ). Instead, counsel advanced “an objectively reasonable and legitimate trial strategy under the circumstances and evidence presented” (People v. Miller, 81 A.D.3d 854, 855 [2011] ; see People v. Berroa, 99 N.Y.2d 134, 138 [2002] ; People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d at 712–713, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 ). Counsel presented a plausible justification defense. He vigorously challenged the People's Sandoval application, which was renewed before defendant testified in his own behalf. Counsel delivered a clear and cogent opening statement and summation, based on the justification defense. He cross-examined the witnesses most likely to provide testimony favorable to defendant. He prevailed on the court to provide the jury with a consciousness of guilt charge that was more favorable to the defense than the standard charge.
Thus, under the particular circumstances of this case, defendant was afforded the effective assistance of trial counsel under the federal standard (see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 [1984] ; People v. Delgado, 101 A.D.3d 1144, 1145–1146 [2012] ; People v. Bodden, 82 A.D.3d 781, 783 [2011] ). Defendant was also afforded effective assistance of trial counsel under the New York standard, as counsel's errors were not so serious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial, and the process as a whole was fair. Consequently, the law, the evidence and the circumstances of this case, viewed in totality, indicate that defendant was afforded meaningful representation (see People v. Stultz, 2 N.Y.3d 277, 279 [2004] ; People v. Henry, 95 N.Y.2d 563, 565–566 [2000] ; People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d at 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 ; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137 [1981] ; People v. Delgado, 101 A.D.3d at 1146, 956 N.Y.S.2d 579 ; People v. Leath, 98 A.D.3d 690, 690–691 [2012] ).
As defendant retained counsel after he requested the substitution of his assigned Legal Aid attorney, and the retained counsel represented defendant at trial, the denial of his request for substitution of assigned counsel has been rendered academic (see People v. Pollard, 78 A.D.3d 618, 618–619 [2010] ).
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
IANNACCI, J.P., TOLBERT and GARGUILO, JJ., concur.