PEOPLE v. JONES (2007)

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of grand larceny in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 155.30 [4] ).   Defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because defense counsel failed to seek suppression of the victim's showup identification of defendant on the ground that defendant had been unlawfully arrested in his home without a warrant (see generally Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 576, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639).   We reject that contention.   The showup identification was made outside defendant's home and thus was not “the product of” the alleged Payton violation (New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14, 19, 110 S.Ct. 1640, 109 L.Ed.2d 13;  see People v. Jones, 2 N.Y.3d 235, 240, 778 N.Y.S.2d 133, 810 N.E.2d 415;  see also People v. Robinson, 8 A.D.3d 131, 132, 779 N.Y.S.2d 40, lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 680, 784 N.Y.S.2d 19, 817 N.E.2d 837).  “[T]he evidence, the law, and the circumstances of [this] case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that [defense counsel] provided meaningful representation” (People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400;  see generally People v. Henry, 95 N.Y.2d 563, 565, 721 N.Y.S.2d 577, 744 N.E.2d 112).   Contrary to defendant's further contentions, the verdict is not 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), and the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

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

MEMORANDUM: