| People v Hannah |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01353 [59 AD3d 307] |
| February 24, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Walter Hannah, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (David M. Cohn of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J.), rendered April 3, 2006,convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a forged instrument in thesecond degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3½ to 7 years,unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is unreviewable on direct appeal sinceit involves matters outside the record concerning his counsel's strategy (see People vRivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]). Defendant argues that when, on two occasions, hisattorney opened the door to uncharged crimes evidence that had been precluded, these actionscould only have been the product of mistake and poor preparation rather than strategy. However,the record suggests strategic justifications for each action (see People v Gomez, 52 AD3d 395 [2008], lv denied 11NY3d 736 [2008]). On the existing record, to the extent it permits review, we find that defendantreceived effective assistance under the state and federal standards (see People vBenevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; see also Strickland v Washington, 466US 668 [1984]). Even if a reasonably competent attorney would have avoided both instances ofdoor-opening, we conclude that, in each situation, the introduction of the precluded evidence didnot affect the outcome of the case or deprive defendant of a fair trial. There was ample evidenceto establish each of the elements of second-degree possession of a forged instrument, and the[*2]court's curative instructions, which the jury is presumed tohave followed, were sufficient to prevent any prejudice. Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Sweeny,Renwick and Freedman, JJ.