| People v Hall |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 09676 [68 AD3d 1133] |
| December 22, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Trevaughn Hall, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Rhea A. Grob ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.),rendered December 8, 2005, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree (two counts),upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt of manslaughter in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt (seePeople v Heinsohn, 61 NY2d 855 [1984]; People v Moghaddam, 56 AD3d 801[2008]; People v Hart, 8 AD3d 402 [2004]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility toconduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5];People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to thejury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (seePeople v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004];People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we aresatisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel iswithout merit. To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant mustdemonstrate his attorney's failure to provide meaningful representation, and the absence ofstrategic or other legitimate explanations for his counsel's allegedly deficient conduct (seePeople v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]). Under the circumstances, and in light of thePeople's case, the defendant's trial counsel pursued a logical defense strategy and successfullyobtained acquittals on the two higher counts charging murder in the second degree. Consideringthe record as a whole, defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People vMoore, 66 AD3d 707 [2009]; People v Holmes, 47 AD3d 946 [2008]).
Additionally, the defendant's contention that various comments made by the prosecutorduring summation were improper and denied him a fair trial is without merit. The challengedremarks constituted fair comment on the evidence or were responsive to defense counsel'ssummation (see People v Franklin, 64 AD3d 614 [2009]; People v Boyce, 54AD3d 1052 [2008]). Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Eng and Sgroi, JJ., concur.