People v Loret
2008 NY Slip Op 09225 [56 AD3d 1283]
November 21, 2008
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
As corrected through Wednesday, January 7, 2009


The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David M.Loret, Appellant.

[*1]Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (William Clauss of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.

David M. Loret, defendant-appellant pro se.

Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Kelly Christine Wolford of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Joseph D. Valentino, J.),entered July 20, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of murder inthe second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a nonjury trialof murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]). We reject the contention ofdefendant in his main brief that he was denied effective assistance of counsel (see generallyPeople v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Defendant failed to meet his burden ofdemonstrating " 'the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations' for [defense] counsel'salleged shortcomings" (People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]). Indeed, defensecounsel's coherent strategy at trial to cast doubt on the forensic procedures used by theprosecution's witnesses is apparent from the record (see People v Hewlett, 71 NY2d 841,842 [1988]). We further conclude that defense counsel's failure to call a rebuttal expert witnessdid not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel absent a showing that the expert's testimonywould have assisted the trier of fact or that defendant was prejudiced by the absence of suchtestimony (see People v Brandi E., 38 AD3d 1218, 1219 [2007], lv denied 9NY3d 863 [2007]). Contrary to defendant's contention, defense counsel's comments at thesentencing hearing were neither adverse to defendant's position, nor amounted to defense counselbecoming a witness against defendant (cf. People v Lawrence, 27 AD3d 1091 [2006]).The remaining contentions of defendant in his main and pro se supplemental briefs are withoutmerit. Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.