Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Daniel FIGUEROA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (George Daniels, J.), rendered October 22, 1998, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the second degree and attempted burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 16 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's ineffective assistance claim rests entirely on his counsel's strategic decision to abandon his motion to suppress identification testimony in order to avoid forfeiture, pursuant to People v. Kirkland, 89 N.Y.2d 903, 653 N.Y.S.2d 256, 675 N.E.2d 1208, of his argument that such testimony should have been precluded for insufficient CPL 710.30 notice. This issue would require a CPL 440.10 motion in order to afford counsel an opportunity to explain his strategy. To the extent that the existing record permits review, we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713 714, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584; People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270, 657 N.E.2d 265). Counsel's strategic choice was plausible, and the record establishes that it is highly unlikely that counsel's continued participation in the Wade hearing would have resulted in suppression of any identification evidence.
Defendant's contention concerning his sentence on his attempted burglary conviction is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that defendant was sentenced in accordance with his negotiated plea.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 21, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)