Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People of the State of New York v. Jamel Parker

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department


February 14, 2013

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
RESPONDENT,
v.
JAMEL PARKER,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

People v Parker

Decided on February 14, 2013

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Sweeny, J.P., Saxe, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam, Feinman, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Judith Lieb, J.), rendered January 6, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 3½ years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims are unreviewable on direct appeal because they involve matters not reflected in, or not fully explained by, the trial record (see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; People v Love, 57 NY2d 998 [1982]). On the existing record, to the extent it permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards (see People v Taylor, 1 NY3d 174, 175-176 [2003]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; see also Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]).

Defendant asserts that his trial counsel's impeachment of the victim by way of prior inconsistent statements was deficient. However, counsel questioned the victim at length about his grand jury testimony, and effectively argued that inconsistencies between that testimony and his trial testimony undermined his credibility. We conclude that counsel's conduct of the trial met an "objective standard of reasonableness" (Strickland, 466 US at 688). In any event, we also conclude that regardless of whether counsel should have taken the additional impeachment measures set forth by defendant in his present argument, counsel's failure to take those measures, viewed individually or collectively, did not have a reasonable probability of affecting the outcome and did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (id. at 694).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 14, 2013

CLERK

20130214

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.