| People v Anderson |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 06410 [120 AD3d 1549] |
| September 26, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vDerrick Anderson, Appellant. |
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Sherry A. Chase of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.
Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Ashley R. Small of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Christopher J. Burns,J.), rendered May 1, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, ofgrand larceny in the third degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimouslyaffirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a juryverdict of grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law § 155.35 [1]). Wereject defendant's contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel.Defendant failed "to demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimateexplanations" for defense counsel's failure to request an accomplice charge with respectto two of the People's witnesses (People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; see People v Walker, 50 AD3d1452, 1454 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 795 [2008]; see also People vSmith-Merced, 50 AD3d 259, 259 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 939[2008]).
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the testimony of theaccomplices was not sufficiently corroborated and thus that the conviction is notsupported by legally sufficient evidence (see People v Matt, 78 AD3d 1616, 1617 [2010], lvdenied 15 NY3d 954 [2010]). In any event, we conclude that defendant's statementto the police and the victim's trial testimony constitute "sufficient evidence connectingdefendant to the crime[ ], thereby satisfying the corroboration requirement" (id.;see CPL 60.22 [1]; People v Reome, 15 NY3d 188, 191-192 [2010]). Viewingthe evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we further conclude that the jury did not fail to give theevidence the weight it should be accorded (see People v Howard, 101 AD3d 1749, 1750 [2012], lvdenied 21 NY3d 944 [2013]; see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490,495 [1987]).
Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention that Supreme Court'shandling of a jury note denied him due process inasmuch as there was no objection orrequest with respect to the manner in which the court responded to the note (see People v Kalb, 91 AD3d1359, 1359 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 963 [2012]). In any event, thatcontention lacks merit inasmuch as the court's response to the note constituted" 'a meaningful response to the jury's request for information' " (People v Jones, 52 AD3d1252, 1252 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 738 [2008]; see generallyCPL 310.30; People v Malloy, 55 NY2d 296, 302 [1982], cert denied459 US 847 [1982]). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.Present—Scudder, P.J., Peradotto, Carni and Lindley, JJ.