| People v Robinson |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 07696 [55 AD3d 636] |
| October 7, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v ToddRobinson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Morrie I. Kleinbart andLauren-Brooke Eisen of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rooney, J.),rendered March 14, 2006, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, criminal possession ofstolen property in the fourth degree (three counts), criminal possession of stolen property in the fifthdegree (two counts), and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his conviction for burglary in the second degree must be reversedbecause the People failed to prove by legally sufficient evidence that he intended to commit a crime atthe time he entered the premises is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2];People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 20 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light mostfavorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find thatthe evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (seePeople v Lide, 192 AD2d 557, 558 [1993]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual reviewpower (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against theweight of the evidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's contention, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, that he was denied the effectiveassistance of counsel is without merit. Considering the totality of the evidence, the law, and thecircumstances of the case, the defendant's trial counsel provided meaningful representation (seePeople v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712-713 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137,147-148 [1981]).[*2]
The defendant's remaining contentions, raised in hissupplemental pro se brief, are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, inany event, are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Covello, Balkin and Dickerson, JJ., concur.