Justin M. thought he got convicted of second-degree attempted burglary due to "ineffective assistance of counsel," and based that claim on the fact that his "baby mama" -- who was the complainant and a witness for the prosecution -- had paid his legal fees.
While it thought the trial judge had erred--because she failed to advise Justin of the "potential risks" associated with such a representation--the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, ultimately concluded that neither the fee arrangement nor the judge's omission had an adverse effect on the attorney's services or the outcome reached in the case. (In fact, the AD4 noted that Justin's counsel attacked the witness's credibility by having her concede she had a criminal record and history of drug use.)
Who was left holding that baby?
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use the following link: People v. Justin M.