Summary
noting that " solitary misstatement within the defense counsel's summation is insufficient to support the defendant's contention that his counsel conceded his guilt"
Summary of this case from Nedd v. BradtOpinion
May 31, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bourgeois, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
We reject the defendant's argument that he was denied his constitutional right to a fair trial based upon his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. It is well settled that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel may not be premised solely upon trial counsel's unsuccessful employment of a trial strategy (see, People v Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796; People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; People v Aiken, 45 N.Y.2d 394). The record reveals that counsel made the appropriate pretrial and posttrial motions and objections and delivered a well-reasoned summation. A solitary misstatement within the defense counsel's summation is insufficient to support the defendant's contention that his counsel conceded his guilt (see, People v Sullivan, 153 A.D.2d 223).
Contrary to the defendant's pro se claim, he was not denied his right to be present during a material part of the trial when the jury was furnished with the street diagram and the wall photographs pursuant to their request without the court reconvening (see, CPL 310.20). Prior to jury deliberations, the prosecutor and defense counsel stipulated on the record that, with the exclusion of the defendant's videotaped statement, any requested exhibits could be turned over without the court reconvening (see, People v Stanley, 163 A.D.2d 435).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and conclude that they are without merit. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.