Opinion
KA 13–01709 1180
12-22-2017
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Tanisha M. DAVIS, Defendant–Appellant.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP, NEW YORK CITY (ZACHARY G. MARKARIAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LEAH MERVINE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP, NEW YORK CITY (ZACHARY G. MARKARIAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LEAH MERVINE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND CURRAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Memorandum:Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her, upon a jury verdict, of manslaughter in the first degree ( Penal Law § 125.20 [1 ] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence when viewed in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see generally People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987] ). Contrary to defendant's further contention, we conclude that she received meaningful representation (see generally People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 711–714, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 [1998] ; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400 [1981] ). We conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Defendant failed to preserve her remaining contentions for our review (see generally CPL 470.05[2] ), and we decline to exercise our power to review them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15[6][a] ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.