Opinion
872 KA 12-00925
09-26-2014
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Derrick ANDERSON, Defendant–Appellant.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Sherry A. Chase of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Ashley R. Small of Counsel), for Respondent.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Sherry A. Chase of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Ashley R. Small of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, CARNI, and LINDLEY, JJ.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law § 155.35[1] ). We reject defendant's contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Defendant failed “to demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations” for defense counsel's failure to request an accomplice charge with respect to two of the People's witnesses (People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 709, 530 N.Y.S.2d 52, 525 N.E.2d 698 ; see People v. Walker, 50 A.D.3d 1452, 1454, 856 N.Y.S.2d 775, lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 795, 866 N.Y.S.2d 622, 896 N.E.2d 108 ; see also People v. Smith–Merced, 50 A.D.3d 259, 259, 854 N.Y.S.2d 386, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 939, 862 N.Y.S.2d 346, 892 N.E.2d 412 ).
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the testimony of the accomplices was not sufficiently corroborated and thus that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence (see People v. Matt, 78 A.D.3d 1616, 1617, 911 N.Y.S.2d 543, lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 954, 917 N.Y.S.2d 113, 942 N.E.2d 324 ). In any event, we conclude that defendant's statement to the police and the victim's trial testimony constitute “sufficient evidence connecting defendant to the crime[ ], thereby satisfying the corroboration requirement” (id.; see CPL 60.22[1] ; People v. Reome, 15 N.Y.3d 188, 191–192, 906 N.Y.S.2d 788, 933 N.E.2d 186 ). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we further conclude that the jury did not fail to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded (see People v. Howard, 101 A.D.3d 1749, 1750, 956 N.Y.S.2d 784, lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 944, 968 N.Y.S.2d 6, 990 N.E.2d 140 ; see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ).
Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention that Supreme Court's handling of a jury note denied him due process inasmuch as there was no objection or request with respect to the manner in which the court responded to the note (see People v. Kalb, 91 A.D.3d 1359, 1359, 938 N.Y.S.2d 705, lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 963, 950 N.Y.S.2d 115, 973 N.E.2d 213 ). In any event, that contention lacks merit inasmuch as the court's response to the note constituted “ ‘a meaningful response to the jury's request for information’ ” (People v. Jones, 52 A.D.3d 1252, 1252, 859 N.Y.S.2d 544, lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 738, 864 N.Y.S.2d 396, 894 N.E.2d 660 ; see generally CPL 310.30 ; People v. Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, 302, 449 N.Y.S.2d 168, 434 N.E.2d 237, cert. denied 459 U.S. 847, 103 S.Ct. 104, 74 L.Ed.2d 93 ). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.