Opinion
2013-08-14
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Ian FIELDS, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Kendra L. Hutchinson of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J. Dennehy of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Kendra L. Hutchinson of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J. Dennehy of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Del Giudice, J.), rendered June 8, 2010, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree and attempted robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), the evidence was legally sufficient to establish his guilt of attempted robbery in the first degree under an accomplice theory of liability beyond a reasonable doubt ( seePenal Law §§ 20.00, 110.00, 160.15[2]; People v. Witherspoon, 300 A.D.2d 605, 753 N.Y.S.2d 88;People v. Mejia, 297 A.D.2d 755, 747 N.Y.S.2d 788;People v. Davis, 260 A.D.2d 726, 728, 687 N.Y.S.2d 803). Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15(5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to attempted robbery in the first degree was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).
The defendant was not deprived of the right to a fair trial by the trial court's Sandoval ruling ( see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413;People v. Brightly, 91 A.D.3d 667, 935 N.Y.S.2d 890;People v. Washington, 81 A.D.3d 991, 993, 917 N.Y.S.2d 255;People v. Taylor, 18 A.D.3d 783, 784, 794 N.Y.S.2d 919;People v. Footman, 233 A.D.2d 405, 650 N.Y.S.2d 572).
“The right to effective assistance of counsel is guaranteed by the Federal and State Constitutions” ( People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 708, 530 N.Y.S.2d 52, 525 N.E.2d 698;see U.S. Const Sixth Amend; N.Y. Const., art. I, § 6; People v. Collado, 90 A.D.3d 672, 672, 933 N.Y.S.2d 738). Here, the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel under the New York Constitution because, viewing defense counsel's performance in totality, counsel provided meaningful representation ( see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584;People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400;People v. Collado, 90 A.D.3d at 673, 933 N.Y.S.2d 738). Further, the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel under the United States Constitution ( see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).