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, etc., respondent, v. John MERCURE, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered March 14, 2005, convicting him of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree, menacing in the second degree, and unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel because his attorney implied that he might commit perjury. Prior to opening statements, the defense counsel sought to withdraw from the case, informing the court that, after having conversations with his client, the defendant would testify in narrative form if he elected to take the stand and counsel would refrain from commenting on the defendant's testimony in summation. A defendant is not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel when his attorney informs the court that the defendant intends to commit perjury, and we find that the defendant's trial counsel here handled the matter appropriately (see People v. Andrades, 4 N.Y.3d 355, 360, 795 N.Y.S.2d 497, 828 N.E.2d 599; People v. DePallo, 96 N.Y.2d 437, 441-442, 729 N.Y.S.2d 649, 754 N.E.2d 751). Moreover, the record reflects that, under the totality of the circumstances, the defendant's trial counsel rendered meaningful representation (see People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 152, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213; People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 708-709, 530 N.Y.S.2d 52, 525 N.E.2d 698; People v. Martinez, 17 A.D.3d 484, 484-485, 792 N.Y.S.2d 349).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
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: January 29, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)