Opinion
2011-10-13
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,v.Devar HURD, Defendant–Appellant.
Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Robert S. Dean of counsel), for appellant.Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Martin J. Foncello of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Farber, J.), rendered February 18, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of stalking in the third degree, two counts of stalking in the fourth degree, and sixteen counts of aggravated harassment in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 2 years, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). The jury could have reasonably concluded that defendant acted with the mental state required for each crime.
The court provided a meaningful response to a jury note. Viewing the record as a whole, we find no reasonable possibility that the jury could have been misled into thinking that the particular mental state for fourth-degree stalking applied to the other crimes ( see People v. Simmons, 15 N.Y.3d 728, 729, 905 N.Y.S.2d 797, 931 N.E.2d 1053 [2010] ).
Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims are unreviewable on direct appeal because they involve matters not fully developed in the record concerning counsel's trial preparation and choice of trial tactics ( see People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 709, 530 N.Y.S.2d 52, 525 N.E.2d 698 [1988]; People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 998, 457 N.Y.S.2d 238, 443 N.E.2d 486 [1982] ). On the existing record, to the extent it permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards ( see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713–714, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 [1998]; see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 [1984] ).
GONZALEZ, P.J., ANDRIAS, SAXE, SWEENY, JJ., concur.