Summary
This Appellate Division, Fourth Department opinion affirms a second-degree murder conviction following a jury verdict. The defendant appealed, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to challenge cell site location data or consult an expert. The court held that such claims generally fall outside the direct appeal record and should be raised via a CPL 440.10 motion. Even assuming reviewability, the court found the contention meritless as the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice or the absence of a strategic rationale.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the defendant was deprived of effective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate and challenge the cell‑site data analysis.
- Whether the claim is procedurally barred and must be raised in a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10.
Holdings
- The claim is without merit because the defendant failed to demonstrate that opposing expert testimony was available, that it would have assisted the County Court, or that he was prejudiced by its absence.
- The claim must be raised in a motion under CPL 440.10 and is procedurally barred when not so raised.
Key quotations
“Defendant contends that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel because defense counsel should have investigated a challenge to the "cell site data analysis" and should have consulted an expert on that topic.”
Factual background
Defendant James D. McKnight stabbed a victim to death in her apartment. An FBI special agent testified that cell‑site data placed the defendant in the vicinity of the victim’s apartment at the time of the murder. Defense counsel did not investigate a challenge to that analysis nor retain an expert.
Procedural history
The Monroe County Court convicted James D. McKnight of second-degree murder based on a jury verdict. The defendant appealed, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to challenge cell site data analysis and to consult an expert. The appellate division reviewed the claim.