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. Katia CAMBRONAE, etc., Defendant–Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph J. Dawson, J.), rendered March 26, 2015, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing her to five years' probation, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's claim that her counsel was ineffective for failing to request a justification charge is unreviewable on direct appeal, because it involves matters of strategy not reflected in the record (see e.g. People v. Perez, 123 A.D.3d 592, 999 N.Y.S.2d 56 [1st Dept. 2014], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 1169, 15 N.Y.S.3d 301, 36 N.E.3d 104 [2015]). Accordingly, since defendant has not made a CPL 440.10 motion, the merits of the ineffectiveness claim may not be addressed on appeal. In the alternative, to the extent the existing record permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance of counsel under the state and federal standards (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]). The record does not establish that trial counsel's choice of defenses was unreasonable or prejudicial.
The court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant's belated request to testify, made for the first time late in jury deliberations (see People v. Olsen, 34 N.Y.2d 349, 353–354, 357 N.Y.S.2d 487, 313 N.E.2d 782 [1974]). The court was not obligated to appoint a new attorney to represent defendant in connection with that request. Defendant asserted that her counsel had “made the decision,” against her wishes, that she would not testify. However, counsel clarified that what actually happened was that he dissuaded defendant from testifying (see People v. Perry, 266 A.D.2d 151, 151–152, 700 N.Y.S.2d 107 [1st Dept 1999], lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 856, 714 N.Y.S.2d 7, 736 N.E.2d 868 [2000]), and that defendant had agreed with counsel's advice. This clarification did not create a conflict of interest requiring the court to appoint new counsel on the application to testify (see e.g. People v. Nelson, 27 A.D.3d 287, 811 N.Y.S.2d 65 [1st Dept. 2006], affd 7 N.Y.3d 883, 826 N.Y.S.2d 593, 860 N.E.2d 56 [2006]).
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims.
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.
Docket No: 11076
Decided: February 20, 2020
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)