From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Jiggetts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 24, 1991
178 A.D.2d 332 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

December 24, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (William J. Davis, J.).


The victim was robbed at knifepoint of her purse, which contained the keys to her house, car and locker at work, as well as $45. The perpetrator was apprehended by police after a chase that started when the victim and her husband saw him driving her car. A knife recovered from the car was identified by the victim as the one used in the attack, and recovered from his person were the keys to the victim's locker at work and $45.

Defendant was identified by the victim at a show up in the vicinity of the crime at which defendant was handcuffed.

On appeal, defendant argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial lawyer did not move to suppress testimony of a suggestive and unnecessary show up identification. However, defendant's failure to raise this issue by way of a CPL 440.10 motion, which would have permitted inquiry into defense counsel's preparation and strategy and given him an opportunity to state his specific reasons for not moving for suppression, makes review of defendant's claim impossible. Generally, direct appeal is not an appropriate method for seeking review of trial counsel's effectiveness. (See, People v Love, 57 N.Y.2d 998.)

In any event, a showing that trial counsel failed to make a particular pretrial motion generally does not, by itself, establish ineffective assistance of counsel (People v Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 709). Defense counsel here argued on summation that the show up was not meaningful because of its suggestiveness, specifically comparing it to a line up for purposes of pointing out its inherent unreliability. This challenge to the People's evidence of identification at trial, rather than by way of pretrial motions, was a legitimate strategy (see, People v Thompson, 69 N.Y.2d 661, 662-663), given the close temporal and spatial proximity of the show up to the crime, and the small chances that suppression would be granted (see, People v Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023).

Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Ross and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Jiggetts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 24, 1991
178 A.D.2d 332 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Jiggetts

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. OSCAR JIGGETTS…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 24, 1991

Citations

178 A.D.2d 332 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
577 N.Y.S.2d 396

Citing Cases

People v. Webb

"The Court of Appeals has time and time again advised that ineffective assistance of counsel is generally not…

People v. Stridiron

We cannot conclude, as a matter of law, that the absence of objection by defense counsel to certain of the…