People v. Goins

208 A.D.3d 592

172 N.Y.S.3d 729

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Shavon GOINS, appellant.

2020–06853

Ind. No. 777/18

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—April 14, 2022

August 10, 2022

Thomas R. Villecco, Jericho, NY, for appellant.

Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Tammy J. Smiley and Autumn S. Hughes of counsel), for respondent.

VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., ANGELA G. IANNACCI, PAUL WOOTEN, JOSEPH A. ZAYAS, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Helene F. Gugerty, J.), rendered August 11, 2020, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his rights pursuant to ( Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 ) were violated when the People failed to provide him with impeachment material concerning a prosecution witness. "To establish a Brady violation, a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material" ( People v. Fuentes, 12 N.Y.3d 259, 263, 879 N.Y.S.2d 373, 907 N.E.2d 286 ).

Here, the defendant failed to establish a Brady violation, as the People did not suppress the subject evidence, which they did not possess and of which they were not aware until it was revealed to them by defense counsel (see People v. Santorelli, 95 N.Y.2d 412, 421, 718 N.Y.S.2d 696, 741 N.E.2d 493 ; People v. Garrett, 23 N.Y.3d 878, 886–887, 890–891, 994 N.Y.S.2d 22, 18 N.E.3d 722 ). The People have no affirmative duty to investigate or gather exculpatory evidence on the defendant's behalf (see People v. Hayes, 17 N.Y.3d 46, 51, 926 N.Y.S.2d 382, 950 N.E.2d 118 ), particularly where, as here, the defendant was already aware of the evidence (see People v. Doshi, 93 N.Y.2d 499, 506, 693 N.Y.S.2d 87, 715 N.E.2d 113 ; People v. Wade, 166 A.D.3d 912, 88 N.Y.S.3d 239 ; People v. Ahmed, 244 A.D.2d 415, 664 N.Y.S.2d 317 ).

The defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is based, in part, on matter appearing on the record and, in part, on matter outside of the record, including matters of strategy concerning a recording not offered into evidence at the defendant's trial (see People v. Croom, 171 A.D.3d 781, 783, 97 N.Y.S.3d 262 ). Thus, it constitutes a "mixed claim of ineffective assistance" ( People v. Maxwell, 89 A.D.3d 1108, 1109, 933 N.Y.S.2d 386 ; see People v. Evans, 16 N.Y.3d 571, 575 n. 2, 925 N.Y.S.2d 366, 949 N.E.2d 457 ). Since the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be resolved without reference to matter outside the record, a CPL 440.10 proceeding is the appropriate forum for reviewing the claim in its entirety, and we decline to review the claim on this direct appeal (see People v. Freeman, 93 A.D.3d 805, 806, 940 N.Y.S.2d 314 ; People v. Maxwell, 89 A.D.3d at 1109, 933 N.Y.S.2d 386 ).

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., IANNACCI, WOOTEN and ZAYAS, JJ., concur.

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the appellant for...