Opinion
2015-03-20
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kevin VICKERS, Defendant–Appellant.
Jeffrey Wicks, PLLC, Rochester (Jeffrey Wicks of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Nancy Gilligan of Counsel), for Respondent.
Jeffrey Wicks, PLLC, Rochester (Jeffrey Wicks of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Nancy Gilligan of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, SCONIERS, and DeJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, seven counts each of body stealing (Public Health Law § 4216), opening graves (§ 4218), and unlawful dissection of the body of a human being (§ 4210–a). Defendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction of body stealing and opening graves because the People failed to prove that body parts were removed from bodies that were “buried” (§ 4216) or “awaiting burial” ( id.; § 4218). As defendant correctly concedes, his contentions are unpreserved for our review inasmuch as he failed to raise those contentions in his motion for a trial order of dismissal ( see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919). In any event, defendant's contentions lack merit ( see People v. Gano, 81 A.D.3d 1378, 1379, 916 N.Y.S.2d 419, lv. denied17 N.Y.3d 952, 936 N.Y.S.2d 78, 959 N.E.2d 1027; People v. Batjer, 77 A.D.3d 1279, 1279, 908 N.Y.S.2d 285, lv. denied17 N.Y.3d 951, 936 N.Y.S.2d 77, 959 N.E.2d 1026; see generally People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury ( see Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d at 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).
We reject defendant's contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Viewing the evidence, the law and the circumstances of the case, in totality and as of the time of the representation, we conclude that defense counsel provided meaningful representation ( see generally People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400). We have reviewed defendant's remaining contention and conclude that it does not require reversal or modification of the judgment.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.