Opinion
October 1, 1992
Appeal from the County Court of Schenectady County (Harrigan, J.).
Defendant contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel based upon the fact that defense counsel stipulated to the introduction of the controlled substance at issue and the laboratory report identifying it as such into evidence. We find that defense counsel's representation of defendant met the standards enunciated in People v Baldi ( 54 N.Y.2d 137). Where, as here, the defense is based upon a theory that the defendant was not involved in the crimes alleged, such a stipulation is a reasonable trial strategy (see, People v Brown, 175 A.D.2d 210; People v Cox, 146 A.D.2d 795). We also find that County Court did not abuse its discretion in submitting both of the noninclusory counts of the two-count indictment to the jury (see, CPL 300.40 [a]; People v Rodriguez, 153 A.D.2d 961, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 817). Finally, in light of the serious nature of the crimes involved, we find no reason to disturb the concurrent 8 1/3 to 25-year prison sentences imposed by County Court (see, People v Harris, 174 A.D.2d 836; People v Marti, 131 A.D.2d 597).
Mikoll, J.P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Crew III and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.