PEOPLE v. SCHWAB (2008)

On appeal from a judgment convicting him, after a nonjury trial, of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 165.45 [2] ), defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his first assigned attorney failed to inform the People that defendant wished to testify before the grand jury.   The request of defendant to his attorney was made one day before the grand jury met, and thus we reject that contention (see People v. Wiggins, 89 N.Y.2d 872, 873, 653 N.Y.S.2d 91, 675 N.E.2d 845;  People v. Gomez, 38 A.D.3d 1271, 1272, 832 N.Y.S.2d 369).   “Viewing the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this case, in totality and as of the time of the representation, we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation” (People v. Wise, 49 A.D.3d 1198, 1200, 854 N.Y.S.2d 262;  see generally People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).   Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contention that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence (see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: