Opinion
June 16, 2000.
Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J. — Criminal Possession Weapon, 3rd Degree.
PRESENT: PINE, J. P., HAYES, WISNER, SCUDDER AND KEHOE, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02), defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. "So long as the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of a particular case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation, the constitutional requirement will have been met" ( People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147). A defendant is not entitled to error-free or perfect representation ( see, People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712; People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404; People v. Aiken, 45 N.Y.2d 394, 398). "[A] reviewing court must avoid confusing `true ineffectiveness with mere losing tactics and according undue significance to retrospective analysis'" ( People v. Benevento, supra, at 712, quoting People v. Baldi, supra, at 146). It is "incumbent on defendant to demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations" for counsel's alleged errors ( People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 709). "As long as the defense reflects a reasonable and legitimate strategy under the circumstances and evidence presented, even if unsuccessful, it will not fall to the level of ineffective assistance" ( People v. Benevento, supra, at 712-713, citing People v. Lane, 60 N.Y.2d 748, 750). Applying those standards, we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation. Counsel made appropriate pretrial motions, effectively cross-examined the prosecution witness at the Huntley hearing and at trial, and made coherent arguments in his summation.