Opinion
July 14, 1995
Appeal from the Chautauqua County Court, Ward, J.
Present — Green, J.P., Lawton, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16). His contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel is without merit. "[T]he evidence, the law, and the circumstances of [the] case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation" ( People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147; see, People v. Russo, 85 N.Y.2d 872, 874; People v. Hobot, 84 N.Y.2d 1021; People v. Flores, 84 N.Y.2d 184).
The contention of defendant that County Court erred in instructing the jury regarding the agency defense is not preserved for our review ( see, CPL 470.05), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see, CPL 470.15 [a]).
We reject the further contention of defendant, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that the court erred in declining his request to charge entrapment to the jury; no reasonable view of the evidence supported that defense ( see, People v. Butts, 72 N.Y.2d 746, 750; People v. Carrillo, 191 A.D.2d 812, 814, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1070; People v. Quyyam, 172 A.D.2d 698, 699, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 1080).
Lastly, we conclude that defendant's remaining contention is without merit.