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. Wilson LLANOS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey M. Atlas, J.), rendered October 26, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 20 years, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about July 25, 2002, which denied defendant's CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment, unanimously affirmed.
The record of the trial and CPL 440.10 motion establishes that defendant received effective assistance of counsel (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] ). The court conducted a hearing on the motion and there is no basis for disturbing its credibility determinations (see People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380 [1977] ). Trial counsel made legitimate strategic choices in declining to call two potential defense witnesses (see People v. Smith, 82 N.Y.2d 731, 602 N.Y.S.2d 322, 621 N.E.2d 689 [1993] ), in that one witness was incredible and potentially harmful to the defense, and the other witness was uncooperative and effectively unavailable. Where the court had properly ruled that certain evidence of uncharged crimes would be admissible, the fact that counsel opened the door to some precluded evidence along the same lines did not prejudice defendant or deprive him of a fair trial (see People v. Hobot, 84 N.Y.2d 1021, 1024, 622 N.Y.S.2d 675, 646 N.E.2d 1102 [1995] ). Counsel's handling of the medical evidence was competent under the circumstances of the case. We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining challenges to counsel's performance.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: December 02, 2004
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)