| People v Lee |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 02416 [105 AD3d 870] |
| April 10, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Curtis Jewan Lee, Also Known as Struggles,Appellant. |
—[*1] William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County(Hayes, J.), rendered December 14, 2006, convicting him of murder in the second degreeand criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence. The appeal beings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of thatbranch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statement to lawenforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish hisguilt beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant'smotion to dismiss was based on an argument different from that raised on appeal (see People v Crawford, 38AD3d 680 [2007]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable tothe prosecution, there existed a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences whichcould lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of theevidence at trial (see People vCahill, 2 NY3d 14, 57 [2003]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495[1987]).
Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of theweight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we neverthelessaccord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony,and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004], certdenied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495). Uponreviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against theweight of the evidence (seePeople v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's contention in his main brief and his pro se supplemental brief thatcounsel was ineffective is without merit. Viewing the record as a whole, the defendantreceived meaningful representation. Counsel presented a reasonable defense, interposedappropriate objections, and effectively cross-examined the People's witnesses.Unsuccessful trial strategies and tactics do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel(see People v Smith, 12AD3d 707 [2004]; People vWashington, 5 AD3d 615 [2004]).[*2]
The defendant's remaining contention in his mainbrief is without merit.
The defendant's contention in his pro se supplemental brief that the County Courterred in denying that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress his statementto law enforcement officials is without merit. The conflicting testimony of the defendantand the detective who took his statement created a question of credibility for the hearingcourt. The court found the detective's testimony to be credible, and found the defendant'stestimony not to be credible. There is no basis to disturb that determination, which issupported by the record (seePeople v Hewitt, 82 AD3d 1119 [2011]; People v Young, 303 AD2d952 [2003]; People v Davis, 258 AD2d 528 [1999]; People v Stevens,223 AD2d 609 [1996]; People v Williams, 226 AD2d 752 [1996]; People vBuchta, 182 AD2d 853 [1992]). A review of the totality of the circumstancesestablishes that the defendant's statement to the police was voluntarily made (see People v DeCampoamor,91 AD3d 669 [2012]; People v Young, 303 AD2d 952 [2003]).
The defendant's contention in his pro se supplemental brief that his statement shouldhave been suppressed because it was obtained in violation of his right to counsel is basedon matter dehors the record and, thus, cannot be reviewed on direct appeal (see e.g. People v Smith, 98AD3d 533, 535 [2012]).
The defendant's contention in point four of his pro se supplemental brief isunpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. Mastro, J.P., Lott,Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.