| People v Hernandez |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04814 [74 AD3d 839] |
| June 1, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JoseHernandez, Also Known as Miguel Hernandez, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Robert A. Schwartz and Sarah S.Rabinowitz of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(McCormack, J.), rendered April 25, 2007, convicting him of murder in the second degree andgang assault in the first degree, 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 beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conductan 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 the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses,hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 340[2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495[1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not againstthe weight of the evidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, to the extent it is premised on histrial counsel's alleged failure to request a missing witness charge, involves matter which isdehors the record and is not properly presented on direct appeal (see People v Haynes, 39 AD3d562 [2007]; People v Zimmerman, 309 AD2d 824 [2003]; People v Boyd,244 AD2d 497 [1997]). Moreover, the record indicates that defense counsel's decision not topresent evidence about a codefendant's arrest and plea allocution and about photo arrays "reflectsa reasonable and legitimate strategy under the circumstances and evidence presented"(People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713 [1998]). The record otherwise fails to supportthe defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel since it demonstrates that trial counselrendered meaningful representation to the defendant at all stages of the proceedings (id.at 714-715; see People vAlexander, 56 AD3d 793 [2008]).
The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in not giving the jury a missing [*2]witness charge is unpreserved for appellate review (seeCPL 470.05 [2]; People vJacobs, 65 AD3d 594 [2009]). In any event, as the defendant did not make a request forsuch a charge at trial, the record contains no discussions concerning this matter, a fact whichprecludes appellate review of this particular issue (see People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424,428 [1986]).
The defendant's remaining contention that he was deprived of a fair trial due to prosecutorialmisconduct is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event,is without merit (see People v Berg, 59 NY2d 294 [1983]; People v Galloway,54 NY2d 396 [1981]). Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Belen and Lott, JJ., concur.