Opinion
2015-05-06
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Troy MOTAYNE, also known as Tony Howard, appellant.
Judah Maltz, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se. Madeline Singas, Acting District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Donald Berk and Ilisa T. Fleischer of counsel; Jason D. Kleiger and Brian C. Henchy on the brief), for respondent.
Judah Maltz, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se. Madeline Singas, Acting District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Donald Berk and Ilisa T. Fleischer of counsel; Jason D. Kleiger and Brian C. Henchy on the brief), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (McCormack, J.), rendered December 13, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the second degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and false personation, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court did not err in denying the defendant's challenge for cause to a prospective juror, made on the ground that the prospective juror was not a resident of Nassau County. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the subject juror qualified as a resident of Nassau County ( seeJudiciary Law § 510 [1]; Ackley v. Goodman, 131 A.D.2d 360, 362, 516 N.Y.S.2d 667; cf. Matter of Camardi v. Sinawski, 297 A.D.2d 357, 358, 746 N.Y.S.2d 489; People v. Mikell, 183 A.D.2d 411, 583 N.Y.S.2d 266).
The People were not required to serve the defendant with notice pursuant to CPL 710.30(1)(b) regarding the testimony of Robert Sorrenti. Sorrenti's identification of the defendant was not orchestrated by the police, and as such, CPL 710.30(1)(b) does not apply ( see People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 552, 423 N.Y.S.2d 893, 399 N.E.2d 924; People v. Alvarenga, 25 A.D.3d 560, 561, 806 N.Y.S.2d 416; People v. Southerland, 288 A.D.2d 497, 497–498, 733 N.Y.S.2d 882; People v. Lino, 121 A.D.2d 472, 503 N.Y.S.2d 429). The defendant's contention that Sorrenti was acting as a government agent such that notice of his testimony was required pursuant to CPL 710.30(1)(a) is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.
To the extent that the defendant contends in point one of his pro se supplemental brief that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of robbery in the first degree, this contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; Penal Law § 160.15[4]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919; People v. Baskerville, 60 N.Y.2d 374, 381, 469 N.Y.S.2d 646, 457 N.E.2d 752; People v. Sancho, 124 A.D.3d 806, 998 N.Y.S.2d 660; People v. Barrett, 247 A.D.2d 626, 669 N.Y.S.2d 244; People v. Moore, 134 A.D.2d 530, 521 N.Y.S.2d 297). Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15(5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).
The defendant's contention, raised in point two of his pro se supplemental brief, that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, is without merit. Viewing the record as a whole, the defendant received meaningful representation ( see People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400). Counsel presented a reasonable defense, interposed appropriate objections, and effectively cross-examined the People's witnesses. Unsuccessful trial strategies and tactics do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel ( see People v. Lee, 105 A.D.3d 870, 871, 962 N.Y.S.2d 696).