| People v Aguirre |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 01613 [92 AD3d 951] |
| February 28, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JairoAguirre, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Itamar J. Yeger of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeals by the defendant (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County(Kelly, J.), rendered June 14, 2010, convicting him of predatory sexual assault against a child,course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree, and endangering the welfare of achild, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2), by permission, from an order of thesame court dated February 23, 2011, which denied, without a hearing, his motion pursuant toCPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction rendered June 14, 2010.
Ordered that the judgment and the order are affirmed.
On his direct appeal from the judgment of conviction, and on his appeal, by permission, fromthe order denying his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate that judgment, the defendantcontends that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Based on his claimedlimited ability to speak and understand the English language, the defendant argues that his trialcounsel was ineffective, inter alia, in failing to challenge at trial the voluntariness of thedefendant's statement to law enforcement officers, asking the jury on summation to accept thestatement at face value, and failing to request a jury charge on voluntariness. We disagree."Viewed objectively, the transcript and the submissions reveal the existence of a trial strategythat might well have been pursued by a reasonably competent attorney" (People vSatterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 799 [1985]; see People v Evans, 16 NY3d 571, 575-576 [2011], certdenied 565 US —, 132 S Ct 325 [2011]). Moreover, the Supreme Court properlydenied, without a hearing, the defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgmentof conviction because the court could determine from the parties' submissions that the defendantwas not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see CPL 440.30 [1], [2], [4];People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d at 799; People v Canty, 32 AD3d 1043, 1044 [2006]; People v Demetsenare, 14 AD3d792, 793 [2005]). Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Eng and Sgroi, JJ., concur.