PEOPLE v. MARTINEZ (2024)

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lester B. Adler, J.), rendered November 27, 2018, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 10 years, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about January 20, 2022, which denied defendant's CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict rejecting defendant's justification defense was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007]).  Defendant claimed that he stabbed the intoxicated victim in self-defense when the victim attacked and cut him with a knife.  The evidence, however, also shows that the victim had fallen onto the floor during the altercation, and that defendant then took the knife and stabbed him seven times.  This evidence disproved defendant's claim that he reasonably believed that deadly physical force was being used against him, and that the use of deadly physical force was necessary to defend himself (Penal Law § 35.15[2][a];  see generally People v. Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96, 114–115, 506 N.Y.S.2d 18, 497 N.E.2d 41 [1986]).  Further, defendant's initial statements to the police that three unknown assailants had stabbed the victim, and his attempt to hide the knife under a hat, demonstrated his consciousness of guilt (see People v. Rodriguez, 199 A.D.3d 471, 472, 154 N.Y.S.3d 229 [1st Dept. 2021], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 930, 164 N.Y.S.3d 11, 184 N.E.3d 832 [2022]).

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant's CPL 440.10 motion without a hearing.  Defendant failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by his trial counsel's failure to contest the People's evidence on blood spatter analysis, and the record, viewed as a whole, shows that counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 [1998];  Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 [1984]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.