People v Washington
2007 NY Slip Op 09439 [45 AD3d 880]
November 27, 2007
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, January 16, 2008


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Marlon Washington, Appellant.

[*1]John R. Lewis, Sleepy Hollow, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Michael E. Bongiorno, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Ellen O'Hara Woods and CarrieA. Ciganek of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Resnik,J.), rendered December 17, 2001, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts),robbery in the second degree (four counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the seconddegree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Since the case against the defendant consisted of both direct and circumstantial evidence, thedefendant was not entitled to a charge that his guilt must be proven to a moral certainty, ratherthan beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Daddona, 81 NY2d 990, 992 [1993];People v Hinton, 285 AD2d 476, 476-477 [2001]; People v Alvarado, 262 AD2d651, 652 [1999]).

To the extent that the defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel involve matterdehors the record, they may not be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v Leach, 38 AD3d 917 [2007]; People v Santana,279 AD2d 641 [2001]). To the extent these issues were raised in the defendant's motionpursuant to CPL 440.10, they are not properly before this Court, as he failed to seek leave toappeal from the order denying that motion (see People v Leach, 38 AD3d 917 [2007]). Insofar as we are able toreview the defendant's claims, the defense counsel provided meaningful representation (seePeople v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Stephens, 22 AD3d 691 [2005]; People v Griffith,231 AD2d 530, 531 [1996]).[*2]

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see Peoplev Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant's remaining contentions, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, areunpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, are without merit. Miller, J.P., Lifson,Angiolillo and McCarthy, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.