| People v Dean |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 07698 [122 AD3d 1004] |
| November 13, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vEdward L. Dean, Appellant. |
John J. Raspante, Utica, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
William G. Gabor, District Attorney, Wampsville (Elizabeth S. Healy of counsel), forrespondent.
Rose, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Madison County(McDermott, J.), rendered September 26, 2012, upon a verdict convicting defendant ofthe crimes of rape in the third degree (three counts) and endangering the welfare of achild (three counts).
Defendant was charged with three counts each of rape in the third degree andendangering the welfare of a child stemming from allegations that, when he was 48 yearsof age, he repeatedly had sexual intercourse with a 15-year-old girl. After aHuntley hearing, defendant's motion to suppress the oral and written statementshe made to police was denied. Defendant was convicted as charged following a jury trial,and County Court sentenced him to an aggregate prison term of 12 years to be followedby 10 years of postrelease supervision. Upon defendant's appeal, we affirm.
Defendant initially asserts in his pro se brief that defense counsel was ineffective, butour review of the record discloses that counsel filed an omnibus motion, familiarizedhimself with the relevant evidence, effectively cross-examined the People's witnesses atboth the Huntley hearing and at trial, advanced a cogent trial strategy, maderelevant objections and gave coherent opening and closing statements (see People v Green, 119 AD3d23, 31 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1062 [2014]; People v Jabaut, 111 AD3d1140, 1146 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1139[*2][2014]). Although defendant correctly points out thatdefense counsel acknowledged not watching all of defendant's videotaped interviewswith the police, defendant was interviewed regarding other criminal behavior that CountyCourt had already ruled to be inadmissible as part of the People's case-in-chief anddefense counsel plainly had viewed the relevant portion of the videotape. We are,accordingly, satisfied that defendant received meaningful representation (see People vGreen, 119 AD3d at 31).
Contrary to the further argument of defense counsel, the sentence imposed was notharsh and excessive. Considering defendant's prior criminal history, which includes aprior conviction for sexual abuse in the third degree, as well as the severity of theconduct at issue here, "we perceive no extraordinary circumstances or abuse of discretionthat would warrant this Court's intervention" (People v Watson, 115 AD3d 1016, 1017 [2014], lvdenied 24 NY3d 965 [2014]; see People v Terry, 85 AD3d 1485, 1486 [2011], lvdenied 17 NY3d 862 [2011]).
We have examined the remaining contentions in defendant's pro se brief and foundthem to lack merit.
Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.