Opinion
March 10, 1989
Appeal from the Steuben County Court, Finnerty, J.
Present — Denman, J.P., Green, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: On appeal from a conviction of first degree rape, defendant argues that he was denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. We agree. Defense counsel failed to make any pretrial motions. He failed to pursue defendant's pro se speedy trial motion even though there was a serious question whether the prosecutor's announcement of readiness for trial in a letter satisfied the People's burden of a timely announcement on the record (see, People v. Brothers, 50 N.Y.2d 413, 416; People v. Hamilton, 46 N.Y.2d 932, 933). Counsel also failed to move to suppress statements defendant made to the police during interrogation, which was apparently custodial. Moreover, counsel failed to move to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the integrity of the Grand Jury was impaired by the prosecutor's improper examination of the defendant concerning the acts underlying out-of-State convictions for robbery and attempted rape (see, People v. Grafton, 115 A.D.2d 952; cf., People v Alver, 111 A.D.2d 336, 337). Counsel's failure to object during the Sandoval hearing (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371) to the prosecutor's request to cross-examine defendant about the rape conviction cannot be justified by any reasonable trial tactic or strategy (see, People v. Butterfield, 108 A.D.2d 958, 959). During trial, counsel failed to object to the testimony of several witnesses which impermissibly bolstered the complainant's account of the incident (see, Baccio v. People, 41 N.Y. 265, 268-271; People v. Mackley, 60 A.D.2d 791; People v. Vicaretti, 54 A.D.2d 236, 244), failed to make any requests to charge (see, People v. Derrick, 96 A.D.2d 600) and failed to make a motion for a trial order of dismissal until asked to do so by the court. In sum, the totality of defense counsel's omissions and errors compels the conclusion that defendant was denied effective and meaningful representation (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147; People v. Trait, 139 A.D.2d 937, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 867; People v. Wiley, 120 A.D.2d 66; People v. Riley, 101 A.D.2d 710; People v. Peterson, 97 A.D.2d 967; People v. Sanin, 84 A.D.2d 681). In view of our holding we need not address the other issues raised on appeal.