| People v Starr |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 01024 [114 AD3d 813] |
| February 13, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Peter S. Starr, Appellant. |
—[*1] David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen N.Y. (Robert H. Middlemiss ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the County Court, Orange County(Rosenwasser, J.), rendered December 12, 2003, convicting him of criminal sexual act inthe first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), and assault in the thirddegree under indictment No. 02-00920, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and(2) a judgment of the same court also rendered December 12, 2003, convicting him ofcriminal solicitation in the second degree under indictment No. 03-00209, upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant mustshow that he was denied meaningful representation under the facts of the case (seePeople v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137,146 [1981]; People v Wicker, 229 AD2d 602 [1996]; People v Sullivan,153 AD2d 223 [1990]). The defendant must also demonstrate the absence of strategic orother legitimate explanations for counsel's allegedly deficient conduct (see People vRivera, 71 NY2d at 709;People v Windley, 70 AD3d 1060, 1061 [2010]; People v Wolz, 300AD2d 606 [2002]).
Here, defense counsel conducted reasonably competent and thoroughcross-examination of witnesses (see People v Clermont, 95 AD3d 1349, 1351 [2012]).While the defendant claims that his counsel failed to call certain witnesses or failed toadequately prepare witnesses for trial, the proposed testimony of those witnesses wouldhave been collateral or cumulative (see People v Townsend, 100 AD3d 1029 [2012]; People v Howard, 92 AD3d1219, 1220 [2012]; People v Brighthart, 265 AD2d 189 [1999]). Based onthe circumstances of this case, the defendant has not demonstrated that he was deprivedof meaningful representation (see People v Aiken, 45 NY2d 394, 400 [1978]; People v Howard, 92 AD3d1219 [2012]; People v Clermont, 95 AD3d at 1350).
In addition, there was no basis for defense counsel to request, or the trial court toorder, a competency hearing pursuant to CPL 730.30 (see People v Morgan, 87NY2d 878 [1995]; People vKeiser, 100 AD3d 927 [2012]; People v Trent, 74 AD3d 1370 [2010]).[*2]
The defendant raised no objection at trial to theadmission into evidence of a tape recording between himself and a jailhouse informant.In any event, the recording was properly admitted into evidence through the foundationestablished by the testimony of a police detective who had listened to the conversation ona receiver at the time it was being recorded, and testified to its accuracy (see People vEly, 68 NY2d 520, 527 [1986]).
The imposition of consecutive sentences was proper, as the defendant committedmultiple offenses through separate and distinct acts (see Penal Law §70.25 [2]; People v Battles,16 NY3d 54, 57-58 [2010]; People v Ramirez, 89 NY2d 444, 451 [1996];People v Laureano, 87 NY2d 640, 643 [1996]; People v Simmons, 93 AD3d739 [2012]; People vRodriguez, 49 AD3d 433, 435 [2008]; People v Wynn, 35 AD3d 283, 284 [2006]). The sentencesimposed were not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.P., Dickerson,Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.