Opinion
October 2, 1998
Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Brandt, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.
Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Pigott, Jr., Callahan and Boehm, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and seventh degrees (Penal Law § 220.16; § 220.03 Penal). Defendant was not denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. The evidence, the law and the circumstances of this case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, establish that defendant was afforded meaningful representation ( see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147).
There is no merit to the contention of defendant that his due process rights were violated when County Court permitted an investigator who was an eyewitness to the drug sale to make an in-court identification of defendant. The investigator never made a pretrial identification of defendant, and thus her in-court identification was outside the purview of CPL 710.30 ( see, People v. Trottie, 167 A.D.2d 438, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 844; see generally, People v. Trammel, 84 N.Y.2d 584). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.