| People v Galvez |
| 2020 NY Slip Op 07091 [188 AD3d 1251] |
| November 25, 2020 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Gonzalo Galvez, Appellant. |
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Jason R. Richards and Amanda Manningof counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Helene F.Gugerty, J.), rendered May 31, 2019, convicting him of predatory sexual assault against a child(two counts) and course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree, upon a jury verdict,and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record fails to establish that he was deprived ofthe effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations (see People v Justiniano, 186 AD3d 1257 [2020]; People vHeyliger, 138 AD2d 519 [1988]). The defendant otherwise failed to demonstrate that hisattorney's representation during trial "fell below an objective standard of reasonableness"(Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 688 [1984]), or that his attorney failed to providehim with "meaningful representation" (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).
The defendant's specific contention that the testimony of the People's expert impermissiblybolstered the testimony of the complaining witnesses is unpreserved for appellate review(see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the contention is without merit. The expert'stestimony was properly admitted as it helped explain the complaining witness's behavior after theabuse, which was not within the purview of the average juror (see People v Carroll, 95NY2d 375, 387 [2000]; People v Taylor, 75 NY2d 277, 288 [1990]; People vKeindl, 68 NY2d 410, 422 [1986]; People v Goodman, 21 AD3d 906, 906-907 [2005]; People v Hinspeter, 12 AD3d 617,618 [2004]), and the expert's testimony neither bolstered nor vouched for the complainingwitness's credibility, as the expert spoke in general terms and did not suggest that the chargedcrimes occurred (see People vTebout, 179 AD3d 1099, 1101 [2020]; People v Taylor, 165 AD3d 707, 708-709 [2018]).
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the sentenceimposed improperly penalized him for exercising his right to trial (see People v Hurley,75 NY2d 887, 888 [1990]; People vSoto, 155 AD3d 1066, 1068 [2017]), "since he did not set forth the issue on the recordat the time of sentencing" (People vWilliams, 127 AD3d 1114, 1118 [2015]). In any event, the record does not indicate anyretaliation or vindictiveness against the defendant on the part of the Supreme Court in arriving atthe sentence (see People vFernandez, 115 AD3d 977, 979 [2014]), and the fact that the sentence imposed after trialwas greater than the sentence offered during plea negotiations is not, standing alone, anindication that the defendant was punished for exercising his right to trial (see People vPena, 50 NY2d 400, 411-412 [1980]; People v Roland, 167 AD3d 942, 944 [2018]). Moreover, thesentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Rivera,J.P., Austin, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.