Opinion
2007-682 N CR.
Decided October 13, 2009.
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Kenneth L. Gartner, J.), rendered March 1, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
PRESENT: MOLIA, J.P., NICOLAI and TANENBAUM, JJ.
Defendant was charged with two counts of disorderly conduct (Penal Law § 240.20, [5]) and one count of resisting arrest (Penal Law § 205.30). Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of one count of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. Prior to sentencing, defendant moved, pursuant to CPL 330.30 (1), to set aside the verdict and dismiss the charges. The District Court denied the motion, and defendant was subsequently sentenced.
On appeal, defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial since there were no black jurors on the panel. Defendant waived his right to challenge the racial composition of the jury panel since he failed to make that challenge in writing prior to the selection of the jury ( see CPL 270.10; People v Parks, 41 NY2d 36, 41; People v Battle, 221 AD2d 648). In any event, defendant's failure to demonstrate that the claimed underrepresentation of blacks in the jury panel was the result of systematic exclusion inherent in the particular jury-selection process would require rejection of this contention ( see People v Branch, 244 AD2d 567; People v Battle, 221 AD2d 648, supra). Moreover, defendant's claim of a conspiracy to keep blacks off the jury panel is based on matters dehors the record and cannot be reviewed on appeal. Defendant's contention of ineffective assistance of counsel, based on his claims that his attorney accepted bribes, was fearful of the district attorney and concealed evidence, is similarly founded on matters dehors the record and cannot be reviewed on direct appeal ( see People v Ballinger , 62 AD3d 895; People v Sabatino , 41 AD3d 871 ). Insofar as we are able to review defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we find that counsel's performance at trial provided defendant with meaningful representation ( see People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712; People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705).
Defendant contends that there were inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimony of the People's witnesses. The resolution of issues of credibility and the weight to be accorded to the evidence are primarily questions for the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination is to be afforded great deference on appeal ( see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644; People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410). We find that the jury properly credited the testimony of the People's witnesses notwithstanding minor discrepancies and inconsistent statements relating to the incident ( see People v Lenoir , 57 AD3d 802 ). The remaining contentions raised in defendant's brief are either without merit or dehors the record.
Accordingly, the judgment convicting defendant of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest is affirmed.
Molia, J.P., Nicolai and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.