| People v Releford |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 02359 [126 AD3d 1407] |
| March 20, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vRamon Releford, Appellant. |
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Kimberly F. Duguay of counsel),for defendant-appellant.
Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Nancy Gilligan of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Frank P. Geraci, Jr., J.),rendered March 3, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, ofassault in the first 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 assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [1]). We rejectdefendant's contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Defendant'sreliance on People v Nesbitt(20 NY3d 1080, 1081-1082 [2013]) is misplaced, inasmuch as the record establishesthat, on summation, defense counsel contested the proof of the identification ofdefendant as the assailant as well as the proof of intent. Next, defense counsel's remarksat sentencing, while brief, did not constitute ineffective assistance (see generally People v Maryon,20 AD3d 911, 913 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 854 [2005]). Although defensecounsel failed to object to the admission of the victim's medical records that containedinadmissible hearsay concerning the victim's identification of her assailant and failed tointroduce into evidence certain 911 tape recordings, it cannot be said that defensecounsel's errors with regard to those evidentiary submissions were sufficiently egregiousand prejudicial as to deny defendant a fair trial (see People v Sinclair, 90 AD3d 1518, 1518 [2011], lvdenied 18 NY3d 962 [2012]; see generally People v Ortega, 15 NY3d 610, 619-620[2010]). Defendant's remaining allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel arewithout merit, and we conclude that the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of thiscase, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, establish that defendantreceived meaningful representation (see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137,147 [1981]). Contrary to defendant's further contention, County Court properly deniedhis request to charge reckless assault in the second degree as a lesser included offense ofassault in the first degree, inasmuch as there is no reasonable view of the evidence thatdefendant acted recklessly rather than intentionally (see People v Flinn, 98 AD3d 1262, 1263 [2012],affd 22 NY3d 599 [2014], rearg denied 23 NY3d 940 [2014]). Finally,the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Centra, J.P., Peradotto,Lindley and DeJoseph, JJ.