| People v Shamsiddeen |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06039 [98 AD3d 694] |
| August 22, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v KasibShamsiddeen, Also Known as Kasid Shamsiddeen, Also Known as Titus Shamsiddeen,Appellant. |
—[*1] William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Joan H. McCarthy of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.),rendered February 22, 2010, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the seconddegree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the verdict was repugnant because the jury found him guiltyof criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under Penal Law § 265.03 (1) (b)while acquitting him of murder in the second degree under Penal Law § 125.25 (1) isunpreserved for appellate review, as he failed to raise this issue before the jury was discharged(see People v Alfaro, 66 NY2d 985, 987 [1985]; People v Tharpe, 92 AD3d 701, 702 [2012]). In any event, viewingthe elements of the offenses as charged to the jury (see People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1, 7[1981]), the acquittal on the count of murder in the second degree did not negate any of theelements of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under Penal Law §265.03 (1) (b) (see People v Brown,38 AD3d 676, 677 [2007]; People v Gatling, 222 AD2d 606, 606 [1995]).
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support hisconvictions of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under Penal Law §265.03 (1) (b) and (3) is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484[2008]; People v Hewitt, 82 AD3d1119, 1121 [2011]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to theprosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legallysufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of both counts of criminal possession of a weapon inthe second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuantto CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of theevidence (see People v Romero, 7NY3d 633 [2006]).
The record does not support the defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effectiveassistance of counsel under the United States and New York Constitutions (see Strickland vWashington, 466 US 668 [1984]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713 [1998];People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, [*2]147 [1981]). Contraryto the defendant's contention, defense counsel's failure to request that the County Court chargethe jury that temporary and lawful possession of a firearm was a defense to criminal possessionof a weapon in the second degree did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel under theparticular facts of this case. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant(see People v Steele, 26 NY2d 526, 529 [1970]), there was no reasonable view of theevidence under which such a charge was warranted (see People v Dickson, 58 AD3d1016, 1017-1018 [2009]). Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.