| People v Lebron |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 06860 [87 AD3d 1162] |
| September 27, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Armando Lebron, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J.Caferri, and Jennifer Hagan of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter,J.), rendered January 12, 2009, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts) andcriminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in admitting into evidencetestimony from the People's expert witness regarding the probability of a coincidental match of apartial DNA profile obtained from the victim's fingernails with a DNA profile in the localpopulation is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Peele, 73 AD3d 1219,1221 [2010]) and, in any event, is without merit. Where, as here, population studies are presentedto estimate the probability of a coincidental DNA match, a defendant's challenges to thepopulation studies "go not to admissibility, but to the weight of the evidence, which should beleft to the trier of fact" (People v Wesley, 83 NY2d 417, 427 [1994]; see People vParker, 304 AD2d 146, 159 [2003]; People v Knight, 280 AD2d 937, 938 [2001];People v Hall, 266 AD2d 160, 161 [1999]; People v Vega, 225 AD2d 890, 893[1996]).
The defendant's claim that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel under boththe federal and the state constitutions is without merit. The defendant failed to " 'demonstrate theabsence of strategic or other legitimate explanations' for counsel's allegedly deficient conduct"(People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143,152 [2005], quoting People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]). Viewing the record as awhole, we conclude that counsel provided effective representation (see Strickland vWashington, 466 US 668, 694 [1984]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147[1981]; People v Monsuri, 83 AD3d870 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 808 [2011]).
The defendant's remaining contention does not require reversal. Rivera, J.P., Florio,Leventhal and Roman, JJ., concur.