Title: The People v. Elijah Cummings

State: new-york

Issuer: New York Appellate Court

Document:

=================================================================
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No. 25  
The People &c.,
            Respondent,
        v.
Elijah Cummings,
            Appellant.
Eunice C. Lee, for appellant.
Lindsey M. Kneipper, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The Appellate Division order should be affirmed. 
After a trial by jury, defendant was convicted of one
count of burglary in the second degree and two counts of criminal
possession of a weapon in the third degree in connection with his
- 1 -
- 2 -
No. 25
theft of two loaded pistols from a Manhattan police precinct. 
Defendant argues on appeal that his trial counsel was ineffective
for failing to challenge the legal sufficiency of the People's
proof on the second degree burglary conviction on the ground that
a police precinct containing dormitories for overnight use is not
a "dwelling."  A conviction of second degree burglary under Penal
Law § 140.25 (2) requires proof that the defendant entered or
remained unlawfully in a dwelling.  A building is considered a
dwelling if it is "usually occupied by a person lodging therein
at night" (Penal Law § 140.00 [3]).  In People v Barney (99 NY2d
367, 371-372 [2003]), we explained that “[b]y using the phrase
‘usually occupied’ to define dwelling, the Legislature clearly
intended to enact a flexible standard.”  Accordingly, there is no
requirement that the building “must always be a home or what
would normally be considered a residence” (People v Quattlebaum,
91 NY2d 744, 748 [1998]).     
The core of our inquiry in reviewing ineffective
assistance of counsel claims is whether counsel's performance
"viewed in totality" amounts to "meaningful representation"
(People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).  Moreover, our case
law in this area emphasizes that our Constitution "guarantees the
accused a fair trial, not necessarily a perfect one" (People v
Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]).  Thus, in order to prevail
on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on a single
error or omission, a defendant must demonstrate that the error
- 2 -
- 3 -
No. 25
was “so egregious and prejudicial” as to deprive defendant of a
fair trial (People v Turner, 5 NY3d 476, 480 [2005] [internal
quotation marks omitted]). 
Here, the record demonstrates that defendant's counsel
provided competent and meaningful representation throughout the
proceedings, which included an unsuccessful pretrial attempt to
dismiss the second degree burglary charge based on the dwelling
argument.  Further, to buttress their position that the police
precinct met the statutory standard of a dwelling, the People
submitted additional evidence at trial that was not before the
grand jury (see e.g. People v Parilla, 8 NY3d 654, 660 [2007]).
Viewing the performance in totality, we conclude that counsel's
failure to renew the dwelling argument at the close of the
People's case was not so egregious as to deprive defendant of a
fair trial.
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Order affirmed, in a memorandum.  Chief Judge Lippman and Judges
Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
Decided February 24, 2011
  
- 3 -