| People v Jenkins |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 00939 [103 AD3d 753] |
| February 13, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Shymeeke Jenkins, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Victor Barall,and David O. Leiwant of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Marrus, J.), rendered November 23, 2009, convicting him of attempted robbery in thefirst degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance ofcounsel is without merit. "What constitutes effective assistance is not and cannot be fixedwith yardstick precision, but varies according to the unique circumstances of eachrepresentation" (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146 [1981]). Unsuccessful trialstrategies and tactics do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel (see People vBenevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Adams, 12 AD3d 523 [2004]). Here, defensecounsel presented a reasonable defense, interposed appropriate objections, effectivelycross-examined witnesses, and delivered cogent opening and closing statements (see People v Gaviria, 67 AD3d701, 702 [2009]; People v Mejias, 278 AD2d 249, 250 [2000]). Viewing therecord as a whole, we conclude that the defendant received meaningful representation(see People v Smith, 12AD3d 707 [2004]; People v Mejias, 278 AD2d at 250).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]). Dillon, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickerson and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.