People v. Ascencio

Summary

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department unanimously affirmed a judgment convicting Bridgitte Ascencio of burglary, attempted burglary, and third-degree stalking, as well as an order denying her CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment. The court rejected her claims under McCoy v. Louisiana and for ineffective assistance of counsel, concluding that counsel maintained a consistent defense, did not concede guilt, and was not ineffective in addressing the supplemental jury charge.

Holdings

1. The motion court properly denied defendant's CPL 440.10 motion without a hearing because the motion could be determined from the trial record and defendant's submissions.
2. There was no McCoy violation because counsel did not concede defendant's guilt and maintained defendant's innocence while presenting defenses to the stalking and burglary charges.
3. Defendant received effective assistance of counsel; counsel was not ineffective for the challenged summation, for failing to object to the supplemental jury charge, or for failing to request an additional instruction on second-degree harassment.
4. The trial court correctly instructed the jury that first-degree harassment was a crime, provided its statutory definition, and twice emphasized that defendant was not charged with that offense.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Supreme Court properly denied defendant's CPL 440.10 motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing.
2. Whether trial counsel violated defendant's Sixth Amendment autonomy rights under McCoy v. Louisiana by conceding guilt during summation.
3. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by allegedly conceding guilt, failing to object to the supplemental jury charge, or failing to request an additional definition of second-degree harassment.
4. Whether the supplemental jury instruction concerning first-degree harassment was legally correct.

Disposition

affirmed