PEOPLE v. EDSALL (2007)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15[4] ) and tampering with physical evidence (§ 215.40[2] ).   We agree with defendant that County Court erred in admitting evidence that he attempted to purchase drugs approximately four months after the robbery, inasmuch as there was no evidence that defendant's drug use on that date was connected to the acts alleged in the indictment (cf. People v. Hall, 236 A.D.2d 789, 654 N.Y.S.2d 491, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 1093, 660 N.Y.S.2d 387, 682 N.E.2d 988).   We conclude, however, that the error is harmless.   The evidence of defendant's guilt is overwhelming, and there is no significant probability that defendant otherwise would have been acquitted, particularly in view of the fact that other evidence of defendant's drug use was properly admitted (see generally People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787).

 We reject the further contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel (see generally People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).  “Speculation that a more vigorous cross-examination might have [undermined the credibility of a witness] does not establish ineffectiveness of counsel” (People v. Adams, 247 A.D.2d 819, 819, 668 N.Y.S.2d 844, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 1004, 1008, 676 N.Y.S.2d 132, 136, 698 N.E.2d 961, 965;  see generally People v. Turner, 5 N.Y.3d 476, 480, 806 N.Y.S.2d 154, 840 N.E.2d 123).   Contrary to the further contentions of defendant, the conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672), and the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.   We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.

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

MEMORANDUM: