Opinion
2000-03916
Argued September 3, 2002.
September 24, 2002.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lewis, J.), rendered April 3, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
Ronna Gordon-Galchus, Bayside, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Donna Aldea of counsel), for respondent.
Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, HOWARD MILLER, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention in his supplemental pro se brief that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05; People v. Finger, 95 N.Y.2d 894; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 20-21). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest. The defendant has not demonstrated that the conduct of his defense was affected by a conflict of interest or that the conflict "operated on" his counsel's representation (see People v. Smart, 96 N.Y.2d 793, 795; People v. Longtin, 92 N.Y.2d 640, 644, cert denied 526 U.S. 1114; People v. Allen, 88 N.Y.2d 831, 832). The defendant's contention in his supplemental pro se brief that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel because the defense counsel, among other things, allegedly failed to adequately investigate and prepare his case is based, in part, on matters outside the record which cannot be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v. Boyd, 244 A.D.2d 497). To the extent the defendant's claims can be reviewed, the record demonstrates that he was provided with meaningful representation (see People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147; People v. Mejias, 278 A.D.2d 249).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
ALTMAN, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, H. MILLER and RIVERA, JJ., concur.