| People v Potts |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02619 [49 AD3d 782] |
| March 18, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v William Potts, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley and Andrew Fukudaof counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Donnino,J.), rendered September 20, 2004, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellatereview (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Oates, 33 AD3d 823 [2006]; People v Jones 309AD2d 819, 819-820 [2003]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to theprosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legallysufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of all counts beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover,upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied thatthe verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633[2006]).
The defendant's contention, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, that the testimony of ajailhouse informant was improperly admitted at trial because the informant was an agent for thepolice, is without merit (see Massiah v United States, 377 US 201 [1964]; People vCardona, 41 NY2d 333 [1977]; People v Jean, 13 AD3d 466, 467 [2004]; People vFlores-Ossa, 234 AD2d 315, 316 [1996]).
The defendant failed to preserve his claim, made in his supplemental pro se brief, that thecourt erred in failing to give an accomplice charge, because he neither requested such a chargenor specifically objected to the court's failure to give it (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People vLipton, 54 NY2d 340, 351 [1981]; People v Edwards, 28 AD3d 491, 492 [2006]). In any event, thiscontention is without merit.[*2]
Portions of the defendant's claim of ineffective assistanceof counsel, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are based on matter dehors the record whichcannot be reviewed on direct appeal (seePeople v Kadry, 30 AD3d 440 [2006]; People v Wingate, 297 AD2d 761, 762[2002]). To the extent that this claim can be reviewed, the defendant received meaningfulrepresentation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People vBaldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83[1982]).
The defendant's remaining contentions, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are withoutmerit. Mastro, J.P., Covello, Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.