People v Hamilton
2014 NY Slip Op 01276 [114 AD3d 590]
February 25, 2014
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, March 26, 2014


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Kevin O. Hamilton, Appellant.

[*1]Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Jan Hoth ofcounsel), and DLA Piper LLP, New York (Robert J. Czarnecki Jr., of counsel), forappellant.

Kevin O. Hamilton, appellant pro se.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Grace Vee of counsel), forrespondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered August 24,2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the seconddegree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms ofeight years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weightof the evidence (see People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The course of conduct of defendantand his companion demonstrated that defendant was "aided by another person actuallypresent" (Penal Law § 160.10 [1]) who acted, at least, as a lookout during therobbery. The evidence also established the element of physical injury (see PenalLaw §§ 10.00 [9]; 160.10 [2] [a]), in that the victim's injuries were morethan mere "petty slaps, shoves, kicks and the like" (Matter of Philip A., 49 NY2d198, 200 [1980]), and clearly caused "more than slight or trivial pain" (People v Chiddick, 8 NY3d445, 447 [2007]; see also People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 636 [1994]).

Defendant's pro se ineffective assistance of counsel claims are unreviewable ondirect appeal because they involve matters outside the record (see People vRivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; People v Love, 57 NY2d 998 [1982]).Accordingly, since defendant has not made a CPL 440.10 motion, the merits of theineffectiveness claims may not be addressed on appeal. In the [*2]alternative, to the extent the existing record permits review,we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards(see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; Strickland vWashington, 466 US 668 [1984]). Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Andrias,Moskowitz, DeGrasse and Gische, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.