Opinion
2012-05-8
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Equarn WHITE, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jessica M. McNamara of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Diane R. Eisner, and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP [Brian D. Mogck], of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jessica M. McNamara of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Diane R. Eisner, and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP [Brian D. Mogck], of counsel), for respondent.
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, ARIEL E. BELEN, and L. PRISCILLA HALL, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered March 19, 2008, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that he was deprived of a fair trial as a result of the prosecutor eliciting prior consistent statements made by the complainant and her sister, which allegedly bolstered their identification of the defendant as the assailant ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Mack, 89 A.D.3d 864, 866, 932 N.Y.S.2d 163; People v. Parker, 74 A.D.3d 1365, 1365–1366, 903 N.Y.S.2d 264), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction ( see CPL 470.15[6] ).
“ ‘The right to effective assistance of counsel is guaranteed by the Federal and State Constitutions' ” ( People v. Cason, 90 A.D.3d 777, 777, 934 N.Y.S.2d 335, quoting People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 708, 530 N.Y.S.2d 52, 525 N.E.2d 698; see U.S. Const. Sixth Amend; NY Const., art. I, § 6; People v. Bowles, 89 A.D.3d 171, 932 N.Y.S.2d 112). “Under the New York State standard for the effective assistance of counsel, ‘[s]o long as the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of a particular case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation, the constitutional requirement will have been met’ ” ( People v. Cason, 90 A.D.3d at 777, 934 N.Y.S.2d 335, quoting People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400; see People v. Bernardez, 85 A.D.3d 936, 937, 925 N.Y.S.2d 604). Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Upon reviewing the record, we conclude that counsel provided meaningful representation insofar as he employed “a trial strategy that might well have been pursued by a reasonably competent attorney” ( People v. Evans, 16 N.Y.3d 571, 575, 925 N.Y.S.2d 366, 949 N.E.2d 457 [internal quotation marks omitted], cert. denied 565 U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 325, 181 L.Ed.2d 201; see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d at 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400; People v. Cason, 90 A.D.3d at 777, 934 N.Y.S.2d 335; People v. Gerrara, 88 A.D.3d 811, 930 N.Y.S.2d 646; see also People v. Del, 81 A.D.3d 468, 469, 916 N.Y.S.2d 103; People v. Torres, 183 A.D.2d 862, 584 N.Y.S.2d 587). Further, the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel under the United States Constitution ( see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674).