People v. Lane, 60 N.Y.2d 748 (1983)

To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must demonstrate that their attorney’s representation was not “meaningful” when viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, and that losing tactics should not be confused with true ineffectiveness.

Summary

The defendant appealed his conviction for second-degree burglary, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. His primary complaints were his attorney’s failure to request a charge of criminal trespass as a lesser included offense and failure to contest his predicate felony conviction. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the attorney’s decision not to request the lesser included charge was a reasonable “all-or-nothing” defense tactic given the defendant’s testimony and the evidence presented. Furthermore, the court found that challenging the predicate felony would have been futile.

Facts

The defendant was charged with second-degree burglary after entering a Bronx apartment at night. At trial, the defendant testified that he had consumed angel dust before the incident and entered the apartment to evade the police. The apartment’s occupants partially corroborated the defendant’s testimony, stating he claimed the police were after him.

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted of second-degree burglary in a jury trial and sentenced as a second felony offender. He appealed, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the defense counsel’s failure to request a charge of the lesser included offense of criminal trespass constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.
2. Whether the defense counsel’s failure to challenge the defendant’s predicate felony conviction constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.

Holding

1. No, because the attorney’s decision was a reasonable trial tactic based on the defendant’s testimony and the presented evidence.
2. No, because the challenges to the predicate felony conviction would have been futile.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals applied the standard articulated in People v. Baldi, which requires courts to avoid confusing losing tactics with true ineffectiveness and to assess the attorney’s representation in its totality at the time of representation. The court found that the attorney’s failure to request a charge for criminal trespass was a deliberate “all-or-nothing” defense tactic, attempting to leverage the defendant’s testimony regarding intoxication and lack of intent to commit a crime. The court noted, “[s]o long as the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of a particular case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation, the constitutional requirement…will have been met.”

Regarding the predicate felony, the court found that the defendant’s arguments were meritless. The court stated that despite the defendant’s claim that he was promised youthful offender status, the record did not support such a promise. Furthermore, the court found that the failure to explicitly mention the “right to a jury trial” during the plea allocution in the prior felony case did not prejudice the defendant, citing People v. Nixon. The court reasoned that counsel could have reasonably concluded no prejudice resulted to his client at the plea allocution.