| People v Sims |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 02178 [105 AD3d 415] |
| April 2, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Quavas Sims, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Peter D. Coddington of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Megan Tallmer, J.), rendered November8, 2010, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of rape in the first degree, criminalsexual act in the first degree, assault in the third degree (two counts), menacing in thesecond degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and sentencinghim to an aggregate term of 25 years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's legal sufficiency claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in theinterest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. We also find thatthe verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibilitydeterminations, including its assessment of the victim's delay in reporting.
Defendant did not preserve his claim that the court deprived him of the right tocontinued representation by assigned counsel with whom he had allegedly formed anattorney-client relationship (see People v Tineo, 64 NY2d 531, 535-536 [1985]),and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. During a colloquy over whether itwould be appropriate for defendant's assigned counsel to stay on the case, defendantnever told the court he wanted to continue being represented by this attorney. On thecontrary, defendant expressed his dissatisfaction with the attorney, and at the end of thecolloquy defendant stated his acceptance of the court's decision to take the attorney offthe case. Furthermore, neither defendant nor his counsel ever raised any constitutionalclaim. The record does not support defendant's assertion that a protest would have beenfutile (compare People v Mezon, 80 NY2d 155, 161 [1992]). The prosecutor'ssuggestion that the court proceed with caution did not satisfy the preservationrequirement (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Turriago, 90 NY2d 77, 83-84[1997]; People v Colon, 46AD3d 260, 263 [1st Dept 2007]).
Defendant received effective assistance of counsel under the state and federalstandards (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; see alsoStrickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]), and his pro se arguments on thisissue are without merit. Defendant's remaining pro se claims are unpreserved, and wedecline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also rejectthem on the merits. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Feinman andClark, JJ.