Opinion
2003-451 W CR.
Decided June 7, 2005.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Peekskill City Court, Westchester County (W. Maher, J.), rendered March 3, 2003, convicting him of menacing in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.14) and imposing sentence.
Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed.
Before: PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., ANGIOLILLO and COVELLO, JJ.
Defendant contends that the People failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in that they failed to establish that he was capable of forming the requisite intent because he was intoxicated. An intoxicated person can form the requisite criminal intent to commit a crime and it is for the trier of fact to decide if the extent of defendant's alleged intoxication acted to negate the element of intent ( see People v. Gonzalez, 6 AD3d 457; People v. Taylor, 245 AD2d 399; People v. Bergamini, 223 AD2d 548). Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People ( see People v. Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find it was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Furthermore, in determining whether defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel, the standard is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the attorney provided meaningful representation ( People v. Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). In reviewing such a claim, the court must "avoid . . . confusing true ineffectiveness with mere losing tactics" ( id. at 146), and in order to prevail on such a claim, defendant must "demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel's failure[s] . . ." ( People v. Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709). In the case at bar, defendant failed to make such a demonstration and, after reviewing the record, we find that defendant received meaningful representation ( see People v. Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, supra).