PEOPLE, res, v. ELDRICK COLE, def-ap

4395-4396. PEOPLE, res, v. ELDRICK COLE, def-ap — Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Sara N. Maeder of counsel), for ap — Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Jeffrey A. Wojcik of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Maxwell Wiley, J., on pretrial motions and plea; Patricia M. Nuez, J. at sentencing), rendered May 1, 2014, convicting defendant of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 1 to 3 years, and order, same court (Maxwell Wiley, J.), entered March 24, 2016, which denied defendant's CPL 440.10 motion to vacate judgment, unanimously affirmed.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

4395-4396. PEOPLE, res, v. ELDRICK COLE, def-ap — Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Sara N. Maeder of counsel), for ap — Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Jeffrey A. Wojcik of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Maxwell Wiley, J., on pretrial motions and plea; Patricia M. Nuez, J. at sentencing), rendered May 1, 2014, convicting defendant of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 1 to 3 years, and order, same court (Maxwell Wiley, J.), entered March 24, 2016, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion to vacate judgment, unanimously affirmed.

We conclude that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards (see People v. Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; Strickland v. Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]). We agree with defendant that his first attorney should have made a timely motion to suppress the stolen credit cards recovered from defendant’s wallet, based on the facts known to the attorney at the time he made his omnibus motion. However, the record, as expanded by way of the CPL 440.10 motion, does not establish any reasonable likelihood that defendant ultimately would have prevailed on the suppression theory he claims should have been advanced by counsel (see e.g. People v. Evans, 16 NY3d 571, 576 [2011]. An attorney cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to “make a motion or argument that has little or no chance of success” (People v. Stultz, 2 NY3d 277, 287 [2004]).

PEOPLE, res, v. ELDRICK COLE, def-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal