| People v Fields |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 05643 [109 AD3d 553] |
| August 14, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ian Fields, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J.Dennehy of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DelGiudice, J.), rendered June 8, 2010, convicting him of attempted murder in the seconddegree and attempted robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, viewing the evidence in the light mostfavorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), theevidence was legally sufficient to establish his guilt of attempted robbery in the firstdegree under an accomplice theory of liability beyond a reasonable doubt (seePenal Law §§ 20.00, 110.00, 160.15 [2]; People v Witherspoon, 300AD2d 605 [2002]; People v Mejia, 297 AD2d 755 [2002]; People vDavis, 260 AD2d 726, 728 [1999]). Moreover, upon our independent reviewpursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to attemptedrobbery in the first degree was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]).
The defendant was not deprived of the right to a fair trial by the trial court'sSandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]; People v Brightly, 91 AD3d667 [2012]; People vWashington, 81 AD3d 991, 993 [2011]; People v Taylor, 18 AD3d 783, 784 [2005]; People vFootman, 233 AD2d 405 [1996]).
"The right to effective assistance of counsel is guaranteed by the Federal and StateConstitutions" (People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 708 [1988]; see USConst Sixth Amend; NY Const, art I, § 6; People v Collado, 90 AD3d 672, 672 [2011]). Here, thedefendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel under the New YorkConstitution because, viewing defense counsel's performance in totality, counselprovided meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712[1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; People v Collado, 90AD3d at 673). Further, the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance ofcounsel under the United States Constitution (see Strickland v Washington, 466US 668 [1984]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]). Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.