Opinion
2017–08773 Ind. No. 1990/16
05-22-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Jeffrey VENTURA, Appellant.
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, NY, for appellant. Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Yael V. Levy and Laurie K. Gibbons of counsel), for respondent.
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Yael V. Levy and Laurie K. Gibbons of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERAppeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Meryl J. Berkowitz, J.), rendered August 4, 2017, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (five counts), criminal use of drug paraphernalia in the second degree (two counts), conspiracy in the second degree, and conspiracy in the fourth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of all of the crimes of which he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15(5), we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 643–644, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the People established a sufficient chain of custody of the narcotics recovered from the defendant by providing reasonable assurances of the identity and the unchanged condition of the narcotics between their recovery and the trial (see People v. Lancaster, 166 A.D.3d 807, 809, 87 N.Y.S.3d 232 ; People v. Rayford, 80 A.D.3d 780, 780, 916 N.Y.S.2d 603 ; People v. Alomar, 55 A.D.3d 617, 618, 865 N.Y.S.2d 311 ). Any deficiencies in the chain of custody went only to the weight to be given to the evidence, and not to its admissibility (see People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 494, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 ; People v. Julian, 41 N.Y.2d 340, 342–343, 392 N.Y.S.2d 610, 360 N.E.2d 1310 ; People v. Lancaster, 166 A.D.3d at 809, 87 N.Y.S.3d 232 ).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is based, in part, on matter appearing on the record and, in part, on matter outside the record, and thus constitutes a "mixed claim" of ineffective assistance ( People v. Maxwell, 89 A.D.3d 1108, 1109, 933 N.Y.S.2d 386 ; see People v. Evans, 16 N.Y.3d 571, 575 n 2, 925 N.Y.S.2d 366, 949 N.E.2d 457 ). Since the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be resolved without reference to matter outside the record, a CPL 440.10 proceeding is the appropriate forum for reviewing the claim in its entirety, and we decline to review the claim on this direct appeal (see People v. Freeman, 93 A.D.3d 805, 806, 940 N.Y.S.2d 314 ; People v. Maxwell, 89 A.D.3d at 1109, 933 N.Y.S.2d 386 ).
MASTRO, J.P., ROMAN, HINDS–RADIX and MALTESE, JJ., concur.