The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of stolen property and driving while prohibited, arguing the trial judge erred in relying on video surveillance and police identification evidence, and that his trial counsel was ineffective.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly conducted an independent assessment of the video evidence and did not merely adopt the police officer's opinion.
The court also admitted fresh evidence but concluded that trial counsel's strategic decision not to call the appellant to testify did not constitute ineffective assistance or cause a miscarriage of justice.
