PEOPLE v. ALLAN (2007)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), rendered August 3, 2004, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The defendant's contention that the County Court's Sandoval ruling (see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413) deprived him of a fair trial is without merit.   The court properly weighed the probative value of the defendant's prior offenses on the issue of his credibility against the possible prejudice to the defendant, and reached an appropriate compromise ruling (see People v. Gray, 84 N.Y.2d 709, 622 N.Y.S.2d 223, 646 N.E.2d 444;  People v. Lopez, 37 A.D.3d 496, 830 N.Y.S.2d 236;  People v. Taylor, 18 A.D.3d 783, 794 N.Y.S.2d 919).

 Similarly unavailing is the defendant's contention that the court erred in admitting autopsy photographs into evidence.   The photographs were neither excessively gruesome nor introduced for the sole purpose of arousing the jurors' passions and prejudicing the defendant (see People v. Wood, 79 N.Y.2d 958, 582 N.Y.S.2d 992, 591 N.E.2d 1178;  People v. Pobliner, 32 N.Y.2d 356, 345 N.Y.S.2d 482, 298 N.E.2d 637, cert. denied 416 U.S. 905, 94 S.Ct. 1609, 40 L.Ed.2d 110).   Rather, they were relevant both to help illustrate and corroborate the testimony of the medical examiner (see People v. Clark, 37 A.D.3d 487, 829 N.Y.S.2d 201;  People v. Daniels, 35 A.D.3d 495, 826 N.Y.S.2d 369;  People v. Allah, 13 A.D.3d 639, 789 N.Y.S.2d 499) and to prove intent, a material element of the murder charge of which the defendant ultimately was convicted (see People v. Louisias, 29 A.D.3d 1017, 815 N.Y.S.2d 727;  People v. Morel, 297 A.D.2d 757, 747 N.Y.S.2d 553;   People v. Collic, 285 A.D.2d 514, 728 N.Y.S.2d 487).   The mere fact that there was other available evidence with regard to these matters did not require the exclusion of the photographs (see People v. Stevens, 76 N.Y.2d 833, 560 N.Y.S.2d 119, 559 N.E.2d 1278).

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 beyond a reasonable doubt.   Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15[5] ), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).

 The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, since the record as a whole demonstrates that he received meaningful representation (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584;  People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ), and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.