| People v King |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07474 [44 AD3d 366] |
| October 9, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JamesKing, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Dargan,Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Jan Hoth of counsel), forCharles Dargan, appellant. Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Karen Swiger of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgments, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Peter J. Benitez, J.), rendered March 18, 2002(defendant King) and April 8, 2002 (defendant Dargan), convicting each defendant, after a jurytrial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing each of them to a term of 25 years to life,and order, same court and Justice, entered July 14, 2006, which denied defendants' CPL 440.10motions to vacate the judgment of conviction, unanimously affirmed.
The prosecutor had a duty to disclose its witness's cooperation agreement made in connectionwith a Westchester County case. However, there was not even a reasonable possibility that thenondisclosure contributed to the verdict (see People v Vilardi, 76 NY2d 67, 77 [1990]).The jury heard evidence that the witness's testimony in this case helped him escape the deathpenalty in a federal case. That the witness was also receiving or expecting a benefit in anautomobile larceny case in Westchester County could not have been significant in this context.Moreover, there was overwhelming proof of guilt as to both defendants, including the testimonyof another eyewitness and highly incriminating wiretap evidence.
The court properly denied that branch of King's CPL 440.10 motion alleging ineffectiveassistance of counsel. King's trial counsel provided effective assistance under the state and [*2]federal standards (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708,713-714 [1998]; see also Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]). The court wasnot required to hold a hearing since it could determine the issue on the motion papers, whichincluded counsel's affirmation fully explaining his strategic decisions, and which raised no issuesof fact (see People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 799-800 [1985]). The record supports themotion court's findings that counsel's decision not to pursue a certain line of investigation, and toforgo pretrial motions, were reasonable under the circumstances of this case. Even if we were tofind that counsel should have made such inquiries and motions at issue, we would find his failureto do so did not deprive King of a fair trial or cause him any prejudice (see People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143,155-156 [2005]; People v Hobot, 84 NY2d 1021, 1024 [1995]).
King's uncharged crimes argument is without merit. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Tom,Marlow, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.