| People v Adams |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04231 [51 AD3d 1136] |
| May 8, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v ChristopherW. Adams, Appellant. |
—[*1] James E. Conboy, District Attorney, Fonda (Pamela A. Ladd of counsel), forrespondent.
Cardona, P.J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Montgomery County (Catena,J.), rendered July 10, 2006, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of assault in thesecond degree and endangering the welfare of a child.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of assault in the second degree, for which hewas sentenced as a second felony offender to five years in prison with five years of postreleasesupervision, and endangering the welfare of a child, for which he received a concurrent sentenceof one year. The charges stemmed from an incident wherein defendant broke the leg of his thennine-year-old son.
On this appeal, defendant argues, pro se, that he was denied the effective assistance of trialcounsel. Our review of the record indicates that counsel offered a reasonable theory of defensewhich he consistently pursued throughout the trial; thoroughly cross-examined the People'switnesses, including the victim; presented expert medical testimony and other favorable defensewitnesses; and effectively pointed out inconsistencies in the testimony during his closingargument (see People v Ramos, 48AD3d 984, 987 [2008]; People vJackson, 48 AD3d 891, 893-894 [2008]). Under these circumstances, we find thatdefendant's trial counsel provided meaningful representation. Defendant's further contention thathis appellate counsel's failure to raise this argument in his brief constitutes ineffective assistanceof appellate counsel should be [*2]addressed to this Court in acommon-law coram nobis proceeding (see People v Bachert, 69 NY2d 593, 595-596[1987]; People v Keebler, 15 AD3d724, 728 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 854 [2005]).
Finally, defendant's argument that his sentence was unduly harsh is unpersuasive in light ofthe nature of this incident, his extensive criminal history and the lack of any extraordinarycircumstances warranting a reduction thereof (see People v Moore, 29 AD3d 1077, 1079 [2006]; People v Wormuth, 3 AD3d 596,597 [2004]).
Mercure, Spain, Lahtinen and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.