Murder conviction upheld even though trial lawyer admitted he provided ineffective representation

I love this case because I would imagine the appellate judges could not believe what they were reading in the record as they decided whether to overturn a murder conviction because the defense lawyer admitted that his representation was incompetent. But while the lawyer dropped the ball six ways to Sunday, the conviction is affirmed. 

The case is People v. Graham, decided by the Appellate Division on December 16. Here is the tablesetter for the ruling:

In this appeal from a murder conviction, we are confronted with the unusual situation where defense counsel admitted his own ineffectiveness in failing to properly investigate and prepare this murder case for trial. Notably, counsel stated to the motion court that he filed a late alibi notice due to his incompetence and his putative belief that the statutory deadlines would not be enforced; his personal problems (which, while serious, did not account for his years of inactivity on this case); and his trial schedule. Yet, after setting forth his own ineffectiveness, counsel declined to withdraw from representation, essentially arguing that his expertise as a trial lawyer trumped his missteps. 

While the lawyer was assigned the case in February 2012, he did not meet with his client until March 2014, and he not only did not investigate the case, he did not articulate any reasonable trial strategy for this omission. Instead, a few weeks prior to trials like this, he asks his clients to tell him what happened. Nor did he investigate any possible alibi to show that someone else had committed the crime. When the trial court found out about this negligence, it conducted a hearing to get to the bottom of this. Here is how the First Department summarizes what happened at the hearing. I know that no one likes to read block quotes, but please read this closely:

He explained that if the late alibi was permitted his client should continue with his representation because he had a “reputation that’s impeccable as a trial attorney” in practice for 25 to 30 years, was in “Forbes Magazine” and “represented many, many famous people, and the New York Mets.” After asserting that he was “humble,” he stressed that his “expertise is trial work.” According to counsel, “being off my game is twenty times better than any other 18B lawyer.” He also characterized the motion court’s concern regarding his effectiveness as “aggravation,” something which he had “never been put through” given his stellar reputation.

Can you believe this guy? I looked through the docket to find out his name, but it is nowhere to be found. Anyway, this bluster is not enough to grant the defendant a new trial because, the Court finds, there was enough evidence to convict him in any event, and ineffective assistance of counsel claims on appeal cannot win unless you can show the lawyer's negligence deprived you of a fair trial. It looks like Mr. Wonderful did a good job at trial once he put his mind to the case, vigorously cross-examining the prosecution's witnesses, moving to suppress his client's post-arrest statements, and twice seeking a mistrial based on the testimony of one witness. So while trial counsel could have done a much better job in preparing for trial instead of reading his press clippings, the conviction stands. And that, ladies and gentleman, tells us how difficult it is to win an ineffective assistance of counsel appeal.