Opinion
KA 00-01379
March 21, 2003.
Appeal from a judgment of Erie County Court (DiTullio, J.), entered May 3, 2000, convicting defendant after a nonjury trial of, inter alia, murder in the second degree.
THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (TIMOTHY P. MURPHY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
FRANK J. CLARK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (RAYMOND C. HERMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: PINE, J.P., WISNER, SCUDDER, KEHOE, AND BURNS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her after a bench trial of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25) and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (§ 265.01 [2]). We reject the contention of defendant that she was denied effective assistance of counsel. Defendant's own expert concluded that an insanity defense was untenable, and thus we reject defendant's contention that defense counsel's failure to pursue an insanity defense constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel (cf. People v. Zaborski, 59 N.Y.2d 863, 864-865). There is no support in the record for defendant's further contention that defense counsel should have requested a CPL 730.30 examination (see People v. Dunn, 261 A.D.2d 940, 940-941, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 822; People v. Wheeler, 249 A.D.2d 774, 775). Viewing the evidence, the law and the circumstances of this case, in totality and as of the time of the representation, we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation (see generally People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147). Contrary to the further contention of defendant, County Court's rejection of her affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). The court, sitting as the trier of fact, was not required to credit the self-serving testimony of defendant that the fear of losing her daughter triggered her desire to hurt the victim (see People v. Drake, 216 A.D.2d 873, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 900). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. We have reviewed defendant's remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit.