THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK RESPONDENT v. SHAMEEK COPES DEFENDANT APPELLANT (2025)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. SHAMEEK M. COPES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

468 Decided: June 27, 2025

PRESENT: CURRAN, J.P., BANNISTER, SMITH, DELCONTE, AND HANNAH, JJ.

LAW OFFICE OF VERONICA REED, SCHENECTADY (VERONICA REED OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. BRITTANY GROME ANTONACCI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AUBURN (CHRISTOPHER T. VALDINA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03 [3]). We affirm.

Defendant contends that County Court erred by allowing testimony from two police detectives stating their opinions as to what certain surveillance videos depicted. As defendant correctly concedes, that contention is not preserved for our review inasmuch as defendant failed to raise any objection to the testimony (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Bullock, 213 AD3d 1351, 1354 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 933 [2023]; People v Johnson, 164 AD3d 1593, 1595 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1173 [2019]), and we decline to exercise our power to review the contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

Contrary to defendant's further contention, she was not deprived of meaningful representation based on defense counsel's failure to properly move for a change of venue inasmuch as defendant failed to articulate how defense counsel's failure lacked a strategic or otherwise legitimate explanation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712-713 [1998]; see generally People v Pardee, 24 AD3d 1252, 1252 [4th Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 851 [2006]). Additionally, defense counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to make a motion “that has little or no chance of success” (People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Cahill, 2 NY3d 14, 41 [2003]; People v Jenkins, 197 AD3d 927, 928 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 1097 [2021]).

Defendant's sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that none warrants modification or reversal of the judgment.

Entered: June 27, 2025

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network