| People v Brown |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 08841 [90 AD3d 1140] |
| December 8, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Corey Brown,Appellant. |
—[*1] Nicole M. Duve, District Attorney, Canton (Joshua A. HaberkornHalm of counsel), forrespondent.
Mercure, A.P.J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County(Richards, J.), rendered March 23, 2009, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime ofpromoting prison contraband in the first degree.
While an inmate at Gouverneur Correctional Facility in St. Lawrence County, defendant wasconvicted after a jury trial of one count of promoting prison contraband in the first degree andsentenced, as a second felony offender, to 2
Through the testimony of Correction Officer JosephCoffee and Sergeant Paul Shepardson, the People demonstrated that, after proceeding toward thefacility's recreation yard where inmates were being frisked, defendant turned back and walkedaway from the yard. Shepardson had instructed Coffee to frisk any inmates who turned aroundprior to reaching the yard. When Coffee frisked defendant, he discovered a metal rod that wassharpened on one end, with a piece of cloth wrapped around the other end. At trial, an itemmatching that description was admitted into evidence and identified by both witnesses as theweapon retrieved from defendant. Although the defense highlighted some inaccuracies in thechain of custody and description of the contraband that could have justified a different verdict,upon weighing the evidence in a neutral manner we find that the conviction is supported by theweight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).
With respect to defendant's claim that the People failed to prove that St. Lawrence Countywas the proper venue for trial, we note that defendant waived this issue by failing to request ajury charge on venue (see People v Greenberg, 89 NY2d 553, 556 [1997]; People vMoore, 46 NY2d 1, 7 [1978]). In any event, the People submitted evidence establishing thelocation of the crime (see People v Lee, 303 AD2d 839, 841-842 [2003], lvdenied 100 NY2d 622 [2003]).
Finally, we find no merit to defendant's claim that he was denied the effective assistance ofcounsel. The record demonstrates that counsel sought to suppress the evidence, raised pertinentobjections, vigorously cross-examined witnesses regarding discrepancies in the evidence inpursuit of a legitimate, albeit unsuccessful, strategy during the suppression hearing and at trial,and made cogent opening and closing arguments. Viewing the record as a whole, we find thatdefendant received meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708,712 [1998]).
Defendant's remaining arguments, to the extent not addressed herein, have been consideredand found to lack merit.
Spain, Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Footnote *: Defendant's challenges to thesufficiency of the evidence are largely unpreserved. Nonetheless, defendant's challenge to theweight of the evidence necessarily requires this Court to evaluate whether sufficient evidencewas presented as to each element of the crime (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]; People v Nisselbeck, 85 AD3d1206, 1207 n 1 [2011]).