People v. Peters
Opinion of the Court
Appeal by the defendant, by permission, from an order of the
Ordered that the order is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied, without a hearing, his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate his judgment of conviction on the ground that his trial counsel was ineffective (see People v Smith, 82 NY2d 731, 733 [1993]; People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 799 [1985]; People v Shaw, 232 AD2d 174, 175 [1996]). Viewed objectively, the record demonstrated a legitimate strategic reason for not calling a certain witness to testify at trial (see People v Satterfield, supra). Thus, the defendant failed to demonstrate that he was deprived of meaningful representation (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]). Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.