From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Walker

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Mar 28, 2014
115 A.D.3d 1357 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-03-28

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Quincey L. WALKER, Jr., Defendant–Appellant.

Leanne Lapp, Public Defender, Canandaigua, the Abbatoy Law Firm, PLLC, Rochester (David M. Abbatoy, Jr., of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. R. Michael Tantillo, District Attorney, Canandaigua (James B. Ritts of Counsel), for Respondent.



Leanne Lapp, Public Defender, Canandaigua, the Abbatoy Law Firm, PLLC, Rochester (David M. Abbatoy, Jr., of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. R. Michael Tantillo, District Attorney, Canandaigua (James B. Ritts of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of three counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39[1] ) and three counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (§ 220.03). Contrary to defendant's contention, County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for a lengthier adjournment. “The decision whether to grant an adjournment lies in the sound discretion of the trial court ..., and the court's exercise of that discretion ‘in denying a request for an adjournment will not be overturned absent a showing of prejudice’ ” ( People v. Adair, 84 A.D.3d 1752, 1754, 922 N.Y.S.2d 696,lv. denied17 N.Y.3d 812, 929 N.Y.S.2d 801, 954 N.E.2d 92). Here, defendant requested an adjournment at the start of the trial because he had received documents from the People the previous evening showing that marked buy money was recovered from defendant upon his arrest after one of the alleged sales. Defense counsel indicated that he wanted to contact defendant's two former attorneys inasmuch as he believed that they had been told that no buy money was ever recovered from defendant. The court granted a half-day adjournment, and we conclude that it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to deny defendant's request for a more extended adjournment ( see generally People v. Spears, 64 N.Y.2d 698, 699–700, 485 N.Y.S.2d 521, 474 N.E.2d 1189).

We reject defendant's contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Defendant failed to show the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for defense counsel's waiver of the Huntley and Wade hearings and, indeed, the record establishes that defense counsel waived those hearings in exchange for early discovery of Rosario material ( see People v. Sinkler, 112 A.D.3d 1359, 1361, 979 N.Y.S.2d 209;People v. Jurjens, 291 A.D.2d 839, 840, 737 N.Y.S.2d 891,lv. denied98 N.Y.2d 652, 745 N.Y.S.2d 511, 772 N.E.2d 614;see generally People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 709, 530 N.Y.S.2d 52, 525 N.E.2d 698). Moreover, defendant failed to show that those hearings would have been successful ( see generally People v. Stultz, 2 N.Y.3d 277, 287, 778 N.Y.S.2d 431, 810 N.E.2d 883,rearg. denied3 N.Y.3d 702, 785 N.Y.S.2d 29, 818 N.E.2d 671). We further conclude that defense counsel was not ineffective based on certain comments he made about defendant during his opening and closing statements ( see People v. Washington [Appeal No. 2], 19 A.D.3d 1180, 1180–1181, 796 N.Y.S.2d 500,lv. denied5 N.Y.3d 833, 804 N.Y.S.2d 48, 837 N.E.2d 747).

Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we reject defendant's further contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence ( see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was penalized for rejecting the plea offer and exercising his right to a jury trial ( see People v. Stubinger, 87 A.D.3d 1316, 1317, 929 N.Y.S.2d 813,lv. denied18 N.Y.3d 862, 938 N.Y.S.2d 869, 962 N.E.2d 294). In any event, that contention is without merit ( see id.), and the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Walker

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Mar 28, 2014
115 A.D.3d 1357 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

People v. Walker

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Quincey L. WALKER…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Date published: Mar 28, 2014

Citations

115 A.D.3d 1357 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
115 A.D.3d 1357
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 2199

Citing Cases

People v. Walker

People v. Quincey Walker4th Dept.: 115 A.D.3d 1357, 982 N.Y.S.2d 679…

People v. Walker

Disposition: Applications for Criminal Leave to appeal denied Decision Reported Below: 4th Dept: 115 AD3d…