| People v Alexander |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 09413 [56 AD3d 793] |
| November 25, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Tremaine Alexander, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Robert A. Schwartz and AndrewFukuda of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (LaPera, J.),rendered January 30, 2004, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict,and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is withoutmerit. "[W]hen reviewing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, care must be taken to avoidconfusing true ineffectiveness with mere losing tactics. The performance of counsel must beviewed without the benefit of hindsight, and if counsel provided meaningful representation in thecontext of the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the particular case, the constitutionalrequirement will have been met" (People v Butler, 143 AD2d 140, 140-141 [1988];see People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 798-799 [1985]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d137, 147 [1981]). "[I]t is incumbent on defendant to demonstrate the absence of strategic or otherlegitimate explanations for counsel's alleged shortcomings . . . As long as thedefense reflects a reasonable and legitimate strategy under the circumstances and evidencepresented, even if unsuccessful, it will not fall to the level of ineffective assistance" (People vBenevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712-713 [1998] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, defensecounsel presented a reasonable strategy under the circumstances, delivered coherent opening andclosing [*2]statements consistent with the defense theory, andeffectively cross-examined the prosecution's witnesses in accordance with that theory. Under thecircumstances, we find that the defendant was afforded meaningful representation (see Peoplev Satterfield, 66 NY2d at 799-800; People v Cesario, 157 AD2d 795, 796 [1990]).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review. Fisher, J.P.,Balkin, McCarthy and Leventhal, JJ., concur.