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. Junior POLANCO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edwin Torres, J.), rendered March 14, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree and robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 3 1/212 years and 1 to 3 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
The evidence of defendant's unlawful entry into the victim's building was legally sufficient. Although defendant argues that a surveillance video shows the victim permitting defendant to enter the building, the victim testified that he did not open the door for defendant, but he held it open to prevent it from hitting himself.
Defendant's argument that the evidence failed to establish his intent to commit a crime at the time he entered the building is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. The evidence supports a reasonable inference that defendant followed the victim home and entered his building as part of a preconceived plan to rob him.
Defendant did not preserve any of his arguments, including constitutional claims, concerning the prosecutor's opening statement and summation and the court's main and supplementary jury charges, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal.
We find that defendant received effective assistance of counsel under the state and federal standards (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-714, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 [1998]; see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 [1984] ). Even if we were to find that trial counsel should have made the objections and arguments suggested by defendant on appeal, we would find that her failure to do so did not deprive defendant of a fair trial or cause him any prejudice (see People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 155-156, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213 [2005]; People v. Hobot, 84 N.Y.2d 1021, 1024, 622 N.Y.S.2d 675, 646 N.E.2d 1102 [1995]; compare People v. Turner, 5 N.Y.3d 476, 806 N.Y.S.2d 154, 840 N.E.2d 123 [2005] ).
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: June 10, 2008
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)