| People v Pickett |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 06381 [153 AD3d 940] |
| August 30, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Jackie Pickett, Appellant. |
Richard M. Langone, Garden City, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Ilisa T. Fleischer and John B. Latella ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Donnino,J.), rendered June 13, 2013, convicting him of criminal trespass in the second degree, upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim that the Supreme Court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry of certainjurors to determine whether they were grossly unqualified to serve is unpreserved for appellatereview, because the defendant did not object to the sufficiency of the court's inquiry or requestthat any further inquiry be made (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hicks, 6 NY3d 737, 739 [2005]). In any event, thedefendant's claim regarding the sufficiency of the court's inquiry is without merit (see People v Williams, 127 AD3d792, 793 [2015]). Additionally, the defendant waived any claim that the court erred in failingto declare a mistrial, or in failing to discharge any of the jurors on the ground of grossdisqualification, within the meaning of CPL 270.35 (1) (see People v Wlasiuk, 90 AD3d 1405, 1410 [2011]; People vHinton, 302 AD2d 1008, 1008-1009 [2003]; cf. People v Prince, 128 AD3d 987, 988 [2015]).
The defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because histrial counsel improperly permitted him to choose whether to move for a mistrial is without merit.The record supports the conclusion that the defendant's trial counsel made the decision to forgomoving for a mistrial after consulting with him (see People v Colville, 20 NY3d 20, 32 [2012]; People v Butler, 140 AD3d 472,472-473 [2016]; People v Gottsche,118 AD3d 1303, 1304-1305 [2014]). Counsel's representation, viewed in its totality, cannotbe considered ineffective (see People vClark, 28 NY3d 556, 562-563 [2016]). Eng, P.J., Rivera, Balkin and Barros, JJ.,concur.