From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Leteiza

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 1, 1997
241 A.D.2d 306 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

July 1, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.).


On the existing record, which defendant has not sought to amplify by means of a motion pursuant to CPL article 440 ( see, People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 709), we conclude that defendant received effective assistance of counsel ( People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137). The trial record does not establish that there would have been any merit to the additional suppression motions defendant now claims should have been made, and fails to negate the possibility that counsel's factual investigations persuaded him of the futility of additional suppression motions. Likewise, the existing record fails to negate strategic explanations for counsel's handling of defendant's prior criminal record.

Concur — Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ellerin, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Leteiza

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 1, 1997
241 A.D.2d 306 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

People v. Leteiza

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. POPE LETEIZA, Also…

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

Date published: Jul 1, 1997

Citations

241 A.D.2d 306 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
659 N.Y.S.2d 38

Citing Cases

People v. Harris

Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic Berman, J.). On the existing record, which defendant has…

People v. Adams

A defense counsel's failure to bring a motion which is without merit or unlikely to succeed cannot be…