| People v Guadmuz |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 05570 [63 AD3d 1178] |
| June 30, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Carlos Guadmuz, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Sharon Y.Brodt, and Rebecca Kramer of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Roman,J.), rendered July 3, 2008, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the seconddegree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and criminalpossession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel due to an alleged conflict ofinterest. A defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel based on a conflict of interestmust do more than show that defense counsel had a potential conflict of interest. To prevail, thedefendant must establish that the conflict of interest in fact affected the conduct of his or herdefense (see People v Abar, 99 NY2d 406 [2003]; People v Longtin, 92 NY2d640, 644 [1998], cert denied 526 US 1114 [1999]; People v Alicea, 61 NY2d 23,31 [1983]). The defendant failed to do so here (see People v Jordan, 83 NY2d 785, 787[1994]).
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved forappellate review, since he failed to address any specific ground as a basis for dismissal in theSupreme Court (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 491-492[2008]; People v Lawson, 40 AD3d 657 [2007]). In any event, viewing the evidence inthe light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]),we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,based upon an acting-in-concert theory (see Penal Law § 20.00). Santucci, J.P.,Covello, Leventhal and Belen, JJ., concur.