| People v Washington |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 03873 [117 AD3d 1091] |
| May 28, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Jarelle Washington, Appellant. |
Amelia P. Marino, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, JodiL. Mandel, and Marie John-Drigo of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Marrus, J.), rendered December 8, 2010, convicting him of murder in the second degreeand attempted murder in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of theevidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), we accordgreat deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, andobserve demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004]; People vBleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we find thatthe verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]; People vParks, 67 AD3d 931 [2009]).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial because the prosecutormade improper comments during summation is unpreserved for appellate review (seeCPL 470.05 [2]; People vHawley, 112 AD3d 968 [2013]; People v Hoke, 111 AD3d 959 [2013]). In any event, thecomments were fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawntherefrom, responsive to defense counsel's summation, or otherwise did not deprive thedefendant of a fair trial (seePeople v Hawley, 112 AD3d 968 [2013]; People v Hoke, 111 AD3d 959 [2013]; cf. People vAshwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]).
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review the issue of whether theSupreme Court properly charged the jury on the People's burden of proving his guiltbeyond a reasonable doubt (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Sanchez, 29 AD3d608 [2006]; People vMcAloney, 2 AD3d 538, 539 [2003]). In any event, the jury charge as a wholecorrectly explained the concept of reasonable doubt to the jury and adequately apprisedthe jury of the proper standard of proof to apply to the evidence before it (see Peoplev Blackshear, 112 AD2d 1044, 1045-1046 [1985]; People v Sanchez, 29AD3d at 608).
There is no merit to the defendant's claim that defense counsel's failure to object to[*2]the challenged summation comments to the jurycharges and to certain testimony deprived him of his right to the effective assistance ofcounsel (see People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184, 187 [1994]; People v Rivera,71 NY2d 705, 708-709 [1988]). Viewing defense counsel's performance as a whole, thedefendant was provided with meaningful representation (see People v Caban, 5 NY3d143, 152 [2005]; People vHawley, 112 AD3d 968 [2013]). Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Austin and Duffy, JJ.,concur.