16 N.Y.3d 571 (2011)
A defense attorney’s failure to raise a statute of limitations defense does not automatically constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if a legitimate trial strategy, viewed objectively, could justify the decision.
Summary
Shareef Evans was convicted of manslaughter for a 1993 killing, years after the statute of limitations had expired. His attorney didn’t raise this defense. Evans argued ineffective assistance of counsel. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that even though the statute of limitations defense was valid, the attorney might have had a legitimate trial strategy: allowing the court to consider manslaughter as a lesser charge than murder. This strategy aimed to give the court an alternative basis for finding the defendant criminally responsible, increasing the chance of avoiding a murder conviction.
Facts
In 1993, 15-year-old Shareef Evans shot and killed a cab driver.
In 2001, Evans was indicted on murder and manslaughter charges.
The manslaughter charge had a five-year statute of limitations.
At trial, Evans admitted to firing the shot but claimed it was to stop a robbery.
Evans was acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter.
Procedural History
Evans appealed his conviction and filed a motion to vacate it, arguing ineffective assistance for failing to raise the statute of limitations defense.
The Supreme Court denied the motion, stating the issue could be reviewed on direct appeal.
The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, finding the failure to raise the defense was a legitimate trial strategy.
The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether trial counsel’s failure to raise the statute of limitations defense for the manslaughter charge constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.
Holding
No, because a reasonably competent attorney could have viewed the failure to raise the statute of limitations as a legitimate trial strategy.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals acknowledged that failing to raise a statute of limitations defense could be ineffective assistance. However, the court applied an objective standard from People v. Satterfield, asking whether the transcript revealed a trial strategy a reasonably competent attorney might have pursued.
The court reasoned that Evans, facing murder charges and admitting to firing the shot, might have benefitted from the court considering manslaughter as a lesser charge. As the court explained, the defense counsel specifically asked the court to consider the manslaughter charge on the theory that Evans took out the weapon to stop a robbery. This presented the court with an alternative verdict.
The court distinguished People v. Turner, where appellate counsel was deemed ineffective for failing to raise the statute of limitations because the trial counsel had objected to the manslaughter charge, making the failure to raise the statute of limitations inexplicable.
Judge Jones dissented, arguing that the record didn’t show a deliberate choice by defense counsel to waive the statute of limitations defense and that the failure to raise it was prejudicial.