| People v Parks |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 06995 [66 AD3d 1429] |
| October 2, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevin J.Parks, Jr., Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Stephen X. O'Brien of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Stephen R. Sirkin, A.J.),rendered October 26, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of course ofsexual conduct against a child in the first degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict ofcourse of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.75 [1] [a]).Defendant failed to renew his motion for a trial order of dismissal after presenting evidence andthus failed to preserve for our review his contention that the evidence is legally insufficient tosupport the conviction (see People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001], rearg denied97 NY2d 678 [2001]). Contrary to defendant's further contention, defense counsel was notineffective in failing to renew the motion for a trial order of dismissal (see People v Bassett, 55 AD3d1434, 1438 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 922 [2009]), nor was she ineffective infailing to make objections that "would have been unavailing" (People v Guerrero, 22 AD3d 266,267 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 882 [2005]). Viewing the evidence, the law, and thecircumstances of this case, in totality and as of the time of the representation, we conclude thatdefense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137,147 [1981]). The "unspecified, general objections" by defense counsel to the prosecutor'scomments during summation failed to preserve for our review the contention of defendant onappeal that those comments were improper and deprived him of a fair trial (People v Romero, 7 NY3d 911,912 [2006]). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretionin the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Finally, the sentence is not undulyharsh or severe. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Green and Pine, JJ.