| People v Griffin |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 04347 [128 AD3d 1218] |
| May 21, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1](May 21, 2015)
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vGary Griffin, Also Known as G Money, Appellant. |
Carolyn B. George, Albany, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Marlene O. Tuczinski, New YorkProsecutors Training Institute, Inc., Albany, of counsel), for respondent.
Rose, J. Appeals (1) from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County(Williams, J.), rendered May 6, 2011, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimesof murder in the first degree, conspiracy in the second degree, intimidating a victim orwitness in the first degree, tampering with a witness in the first degree, criminalpossession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal facilitation in the seconddegree, and (2) from a judgment of said court, rendered August 26, 2011, whichresentenced defendant.
Defendant, an admitted member of the "Sex, Money, Murder" branch of the Bloodsgang, was charged with murder in the first degree as well as other, lesser charges inconnection with his involvement in an execution-style murder intended to prevent thevictim from testifying in a pending criminal action against another member of the gang.Members of the gang and their associates had threatened the victim's family and had beenlooking for him when they received word of his nearby location. Defendant andcodefendant Trevor Mattis, together with two female associates, then drove to thevictim's location. When they arrived, defendant gave Mattis a gun and Mattis shot thevictim in the back of the head. Defendant then directed the getaway and disposal of thegun. After a joint trial, at which the two female associates testified on behalf of thePeople, defendant and Mattis were convicted as charged. County Court then sentencedthem [*2]each to a controlling term of life in prisonwithout the possibility of parole,[FN1] and defendant appeals.[FN2]
Defendant contends that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence because thetrial testimony of the two associates was inconsistent with their prior statements to thepolice and, for that reason, should have been discredited.[FN3] After reviewing the full record andapplying the standards of People v Bleakley (69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]), wedisagree. When the two female associates were questioned by the police on the dayfollowing the murder, they minimized their involvement and knowledge of the incident.However, after they were both charged in connection with the victim's death, theyentered into cooperation agreements with the District Attorney providing them withfavorable treatment in return for their truthful testimony. Their testimony at trial, whichwas consistent with their testimony before the grand jury, identified defendant as the "bighomie" or boss of the local branch of the gang, implicated him in the gang's plan to findthe victim and to prevent the victim from testifying against their fellow gang member,and identified defendant as the supplier of the murder weapon to Mattis. The twoassociates testified that their initial statements, given to police immediately after theirarrests, did not reveal everything that they knew because of their fear of being heldresponsible for the victim's murder as well as retaliation from the gang. Contrary todefendant's assertion, their testimony was neither inherently incredible nor patently false.Nor is there any support for defendant's claim that the People knowingly presented falsetestimony. These issues concerning the inconsistencies between the testimony of theseassociates and their prior statements, as well as the benefits that they were receiving bytestifying against defendant, were fully explored at trial and aired before the jury (see People v Lloyd, 118 AD3d1117, 1121 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 951 [2015]; People v Tyrell, 82 AD3d1352, 1354-1355 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 810 [2011]; People vHerring, 305 AD2d 855, 855 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 582 [2003]). Dueto the jury's ability to view the witnesses, hear their testimony and observe theirdemeanor, we give great deference to its credibility determinations and, as a result, wecannot conclude that the verdict—as to any of the charges—was against theweight of the evidence (seePeople v Turcotte, 124 AD3d 1082, 1083 [2015]; People v Simmons, 115 AD3d1018, 1019-1020 [2014]; People v Thompson, 75 AD3d 760, 763-764 [2010], lvdenied 15 NY3d 896 [2010]).
Defendant's contention that his counsel was ineffective for failing to make variousmotions or objections is also unpersuasive, as all of the motions or objections thatdefendant now claims should have been raised would have been properly rejected byCounty Court in the event [*3]that they had been raised.Accordingly, we apply the precept that "[t]here can be no denial of effective assistance oftrial counsel arising from counsel's failure to make a motion or argument that has little orno chance of success" (People vCaban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted];see People v Morales, 119AD3d 1082, 1084 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1086 [2014]). In short, ourreview of the record satisfies us that counsel made appropriate pretrial motions,presented a cogent defense theory, effectively cross-examined witnesses and, as a whole,provided meaningful representation (see People v Bateman, 124 AD3d 983, 986 [2015], lvdenied 25 NY3d 949 [2015]; People v Griffin, 122 AD3d 1068, 1071 [2014]; People v Vanderhorst, 117AD3d 1197, 1201 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1089 [2014]).
Finally, in light of defendant's violent criminal history, lack of remorse and centralrole in the cold-blooded execution of the victim for the purpose of preventing him fromtestifying in a criminal action, we find no abuse of discretion or extraordinarycircumstances warranting a reduction of his sentence (see People v Shoemaker, 119AD3d 1073, 1077 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 992 [Apr. 13, 2015]; People v Booker, 53 AD3d 697, 704 [2008], lvdenied 11 NY3d 853 [2008]; People v Kearney, 39 AD3d 964, 966 [2007], lvdenied 9 NY3d 846 [2007]). Defendant's remaining contentions have been examinedand determined to be without merit.
Peters, P.J., Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgments areaffirmed.
Footnote 1:We previously affirmedMattis' conviction (People vMattis, 108 AD3d 872 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 957 [2013]).
Footnote 2:Defendant was laterresentenced as a second felony offender to lengthier sentences on the lesser counts.Although defendant filed a notice of appeal from that judgment, he does not raise anyissues with respect to the resentencing.
Footnote 3:To the extent thatdefendant also argues that the verdict is not based on legally sufficient evidence, hefailed to preserve this issue with a motion for a trial order of dismissal. "We will,however, necessarily evaluate whether the elements of the crime[s] were adequatelyproven as part of our review of the weight of the evidence" (People v Jones, 101 AD3d1241, 1241 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 944 [2013]).