| People v Patrick |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 00359 [102 AD3d 892] |
| January 23, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Shakim Patrick, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Jodi L.Mandel, and Jennifer L. Feldman of counsel; Deborah Wei on the brief), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Marrus, J.), rendered September 10, 2008, convicting him of murder in the seconddegree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in failing to give an expandedidentification charge is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant did not objectto the identification charge as given by the court to the jury (see CPL 470.05 [2];People v Carter, 44 AD3d677 [2007]; see also Peoplev Gega, 74 AD3d 1229, 1231 [2010]; People v James, 35 AD3d 762 [2006]). In any event, thecharge as given "sufficiently apprised the jury that the reasonable doubt standard appliedto identification" (People v Knight, 87 NY2d 873, 874 [1995]). Furthermore,contrary to the defendant's contention, the court's charge to the jury regarding the priorstatements of witnesses adequately conveyed the legal principles applicable to this case(see People v Padilla, 206 AD2d 271 [1994]; People v Calderon, 182AD2d 770 [1992]; see also People v Ortiz, 250 AD2d 372 [1998]).
The defendant's argument regarding alleged prosecutorial misconduct duringsummation is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People vDien, 77 NY2d 885 [1991]; People v Nuccie, 57 NY2d 818 [1982]). In anyevent, the comments alleged to be inflammatory and prejudicial were all either faircomment on the evidence (see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105 [1976]), orresponsive to arguments presented in the defense counsel's summation (see People vGalloway, 54 NY2d 396 [1981]).
The defendant contends that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel.To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a criminal defendant mustovercome the strong presumption that defense counsel rendered effective assistance(see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]; People v Myers, 220 AD2d461 [1995]). Here, upon a review of the record in its entirety and without giving unduesignificance to retrospective analysis, we are satisfied that the defendant received the[*2]effective assistance of counsel (see People vMyers, 220 AD2d 461 [1995]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro sesupplemental brief, are without merit. Balkin, J.P., Lott, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.