From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Longchamp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 21, 1989
147 A.D.2d 659 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

February 21, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Meyerson, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant, who was represented by an attorney, executed a formal written waiver of a jury trial in open court after an inquiry by the court as to his understanding of the consequences of his choice (see, People v Aponte, 144 A.D.2d 679; People v Harris, 133 A.D.2d 649, 650, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 932). Thus, we are satisfied that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to a jury trial (see generally, People v Davis, 49 N.Y.2d 114).

Defense counsel's failure to move for a Huntley or Mapp hearing does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Since the defendant conceded, in a taped conversation, that Detective Daly had probably seen the gun, the Mapp hearing would have been futile (see, People v Boero, 117 A.D.2d 814). Moreover, defense counsel's decision not to seek a Huntley hearing was a legitimate part of his trial strategy, which involved demonstrating that the police officers entrapped the defendant into making the bribe offer (see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; People v Smith, 126 A.D.2d 863). Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Longchamp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 21, 1989
147 A.D.2d 659 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Longchamp

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. EMMANUEL LONGCHAMP…

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

Date published: Feb 21, 1989

Citations

147 A.D.2d 659 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
538 N.Y.S.2d 60

Citing Cases

People v. Zarro

The record makes clear that the request, made on the day opening statements were scheduled to be delivered,…

People v. Brooks

Moreover, the defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that the trial court erred in…