PEOPLE v. WEBSTER (2008)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a nonjury trial of attempted robbery in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.15[4] ).   We reject the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel.   Defendant failed “to demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations” for the failure of defense counsel to pursue a Huntley or a Ventimiglia hearing, or to object to the admission of defendant's statements at trial (People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 709, 530 N.Y.S.2d 52, 525 N.E.2d 698;  see People v. Kirkey, 248 A.D.2d 979, 980, 670 N.Y.S.2d 946, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 900, 680 N.Y.S.2d 64, 702 N.E.2d 849;  see generally People v. Jackson, 172 A.D.2d 874, 875, 568 N.Y.S.2d 177, lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 923, 573 N.Y.S.2d 475, 577 N.E.2d 1067).  “With respect to the failure to request a Sandoval ruling, we note that [County] Court in this nonjury trial is presumed to have evaluated the evidence [of defendant's past criminal conduct] only for the purpose of impeaching ․ defendant's credibility and not as evidence of guilt of the crime charged” (People v. Maryon, 20 A.D.3d 911, 912-913, 797 N.Y.S.2d 684, lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 854, 806 N.Y.S.2d 174, 840 N.E.2d 143 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).   In addition, defense counsel's alleged error in failing to make an opening statement is “attributable to or substantially ameliorated by the fact that defendant elected to waive a jury trial” (id. at 913, 797 N.Y.S.2d 684).   In sum, viewing the evidence, the law and the circumstances of this case, in totality and as of the time of the representation, we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation (see generally People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).

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

MEMORANDUM: