From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hayes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 28, 1992
186 A.D.2d 268 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

September 28, 1992

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


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's waiver of his rights comports with the standards set out in People v Harris ( 61 N.Y.2d 9). Contrary to the defendant's claim, the court ensured that the defendant was aware that he did not have to plead guilty and that he could proceed to trial if he had any question regarding the facts. Moreover, the record indicates that the defendant thought about the plea, conferred with his attorney, and voluntarily rephrased his statement of the facts of the crime to remove any ambiguity. Thus, the defendant's plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

Furthermore, contrary to his assertions, the defendant received the effective assistance of counsel. In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must overcome the presumption of effectiveness and show that counsel failed to provide "meaningful representation" (People v Jackson, 70 N.Y.2d 768, 769). Additionally, the defendant must show that, but for counsel's allegedly deficient performance, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted upon going to trial (see, Hill v Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57-59). Here, the defendant has not overcome the presumption. The mere fact that different attorneys assisted in the defendant's case at different times does not render their assistance ineffective (see, Morris v Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 14). Moreover, the defendant does not allege that he is actually innocent of the charges to which he voluntarily pleaded guilty (see, United States v Tiler, 602 F.2d 30, 35). Nor does he assert that, but for the alleged errors of counsel, there is a reasonable possibility that he would not have pleaded guilty, would have insisted upon going to trial, and would have been acquitted or received a lesser sentence if convicted, than he actually received (see, Strickland v Washington, 466 U.S. 668).

We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., Balletta, Eiber, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Hayes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 28, 1992
186 A.D.2d 268 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Hayes

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ROBIN HAYES, Appellant

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

Date published: Sep 28, 1992

Citations

186 A.D.2d 268 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
588 N.Y.S.2d 328

Citing Cases

People v. Weinert

(66 N.Y.2d, supra, at 798.) A review of the record indicates that defendant has failed to offer any evidence…

People v. Walker

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed. The defendant's first argument, that the evidence before the Grand…