| People v Ventura |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 04010 [172 AD3d 1252] |
| May 22, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Jeffrey Ventura, Appellant. |
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Yael V. Levy and Laurie K. Gibbons ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Meryl J.Berkowitz, J.), rendered August 4, 2017, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlledsubstance in the second degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (twocounts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (five counts), criminaluse of drug paraphernalia in the second degree (two counts), conspiracy in the second degree, andconspiracy in the fourth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt of all of the crimes of which he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d342, 349 [2007]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Moreover, upon ourindependent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict was not againstthe weight of the evidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633, 643-644 [2006]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the People established a sufficient chain of custody ofthe narcotics recovered from the defendant by providing reasonable assurances of the identity andthe unchanged condition of the narcotics between their recovery and the trial (see People v Lancaster, 166 AD3d807, 809 [2018]; People vRayford, 80 AD3d 780, 780 [2011]; People v Alomar, 55 AD3d 617, 618 [2008]). Any deficiencies inthe chain of custody went only to the weight to be given to the evidence, and not to itsadmissibility (see People vHawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 494 [2008]; People v Julian, 41 NY2d 340, 342-343[1977]; People v Lancaster, 166 AD3d at 809).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel isbased, in part, on matter appearing on the record and, in part, on matter outside the record, andthus constitutes a "mixed claim" of ineffective assistance (People v Maxwell, 89 AD3d 1108, 1109 [2011]; see People v Evans, 16 NY3d 571,575 n 2 [2011]). Since the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot beresolved without reference to matter outside the record, a CPL 440.10 proceeding is theappropriate forum for reviewing the claim in its entirety, and we decline to review the claim onthis direct appeal (see People vFreeman, 93 AD3d 805, 806 [2012]; People v Maxwell, 89 AD3d at 1109).Mastro, J.P., Roman, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.