Opinion
2013-04-3
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Richard WEST, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Kathleen Whooley of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Victor Barall, and Thomas M. Ross of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Kathleen Whooley of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Victor Barall, and Thomas M. Ross of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mullen, J.), rendered August 12, 2009, convicting him of rape in the first degree and rape in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (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). However, the record in this case demonstrates that defense counsel effectively cross-examined the People's witnesses, presented an alibi defense, made competent opening and closing statements which were consistent with that defense, and filed various pretrial and posttrial motions on the defendant's behalf (see People v. Prescott, 63 A.D.3d 1090, 880 N.Y.S.2d 567;People v. Cabezudo, 303 A.D.2d 596, 756 N.Y.S.2d 490). Moreover, the defendant has failed to demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel's alleged shortcomings (see People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 152, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213;People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 709, 530 N.Y.S.2d 52, 525 N.E.2d 698). Accordingly, the defendant has failed to establish that he was denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel (see People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d at 152, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213;People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d at 709, 530 N.Y.S.2d 52, 525 N.E.2d 698). The defendant's contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946). In any event, 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), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of rape in the first degree and rape in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15(5), we are satisfied that the verdicts of guilt were not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1;People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).
The remaining contentions raised in the defendant's pro se supplemental brief are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit.