| People v Poles |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01203 [70 AD3d 1402] |
| February 11, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v DegloydePoles, Appellant. |
—[*1] Degloyde Poles, defendant-appellant pro se. Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Geoffrey Kaeuper of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Raymond E. Cornelius, J.),rendered May 5, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of murder in thesecond degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession ofa weapon in the third degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, following a jury trial, ofmurder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]), criminal possession of a weapon inthe second degree (§ 265.03 [former (2)]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the thirddegree (§ 265.02 [former (4)]). Defendant contends that the CPL 710.30 notice wasinsufficient because it did not include the names of the witnesses who identified defendant fromphoto arrays prior to trial. We reject that contention. Even assuming, arguendo, that the Peoplewere required to serve a CPL 710.30 notice for those pretrial identifications of defendant (see People v Grajales, 8 NY3d861, 862 [2007]), we conclude that the notice was sufficient because it set forth "the date ofthe identification proceeding, the location where it occurred and the manner of identification"(People v Sumter, 68 AD3d1701, 1701 [2009]; see People v Lopez, 84 NY2d 425, 428 [1994]).
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that Supreme Court's initialaggressor charge was improper (see CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise ourpower to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (seeCPL 470.15 [6] [a]). We further conclude that defense counsel was not ineffective in requestingthe charge, which comports with that set forth in the Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions(see CJI2d[NY] Defense, Justification: Use of Deadly Physical Force in Defense of aPerson; see also People vMcWilliams, 48 AD3d 1266, 1267 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 961 [2008]).Contrary to the contention of defendant in his main and pro se supplemental briefs, defensecounsel's representation, viewed in its entirety, was meaningful (see generally People v [*2]Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).
We have considered the remaining contentions of defendant in his pro se supplemental briefand conclude that none requires reversal. Present—Scudder, P.J., Fahey, Lindley andGreen, JJ.