From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Zimmerman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 14, 2003
309 A.D.2d 824 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-01264

Argued September 12, 2003.

October 14, 2003.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), rendered January 17, 2002, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and menacing in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ronald L. Kuby, New York, N.Y. (Daniel M. Perez of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicolleta Caferri, and Michael Tarbutton of counsel), for respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, LEO F. McGINITY, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the trial court erred in not giving a missing witness charge to the jury. However, the defendant did not raise in the Supreme Court any of the substantive arguments concerning corroboration and noncumulative testimony which he now raises on appeal. Therefore, the defendant's contentions are unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Turriago, 90 N.Y.2d 77; People v. Porter, 268 A.D.2d 538). In any event, the defendant cannot meet his burden of establishing prima facie entitlement to a missing witness charge ( see People v. Kitching, 78 N.Y.2d 532; People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424) . There is no evidence that the witness had knowledge of a material issue or could provide noncumulative testimony. A missing witness charge therefore was not warranted.

The defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, to the extent that it is premised on his trial counsel's alleged failure to call potential alibi witnesses, involves matters which are dehors the record and are not properly presented on direct appeal ( see People v. Boyd, 244 A.D.2d 497). Moreover, it is clear from the record that the defense counsel's decision not to object to certain testimony regarding the circumstances of the defendant's arrest was part of his trial strategy ( see, People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708). The record otherwise fails to supports the defendant's claim since it demonstrates that trial counsel rendered meaningful representation to the defendant at all stages of the proceedings ( see People v. Benevento, supra).

SANTUCCI, J.P., S. MILLER, McGINITY and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Zimmerman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 14, 2003
309 A.D.2d 824 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

People v. Zimmerman

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. NICHOLAS ZIMMERMAN, appellant

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

Date published: Oct 14, 2003

Citations

309 A.D.2d 824 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
765 N.Y.S.2d 524

Citing Cases

Zimmerman v. Burge

t erred when it denied trial counsel's request for a missing witness charge concerning Barnes; (2) his trial…

Zimmerman v. Conway

On April 16, 2002, Petitioner arrived at Sing Sing Correctional Facility in Ossining, New York ("Sing Sing")…