PEOPLE v. DEMOLAIRE (2008)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Aloise, J.), rendered April 26, 2006, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree and conspiracy in the sixth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of manslaughter in the second degree because it was insufficient to show that he acted recklessly is preserved for appellate review.   His argument in support of his trial motion of dismissal was sufficiently specific to alert the court to his position (see CPL 470.05 [2];  People v. Rose, 41 A.D.3d 742, 742, 840 N.Y.S.2d 363;  People v. Jean-Baptiste, 38 A.D.3d 418, 420, 833 N.Y.S.2d 31).   However, the contention is without merit.   Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 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 (see People v. Biggs, 52 A.D.3d 620, 859 N.Y.S.2d 724;  People v. Henrius, 6 A.D.3d 548, 549, 774 N.Y.S.2d 400;  People v. Feliciano, 298 A.D.2d 598, 598, 748 N.Y.S.2d 687).   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's contention that the accomplice testimony adduced at trial was insufficiently corroborated by independent evidence, as required by CPL 60.22(1), is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is also without merit (see People v. Steinberg, 79 N.Y.2d 673, 683, 584 N.Y.S.2d 770, 595 N.E.2d 845;  People v. Montefusco, 44 A.D.3d 879, 880, 843 N.Y.S.2d 671;  People v. Hicks, 20 A.D.3d 695, 697, 798 N.Y.S.2d 255;  People v. Williams, 8 A.D.3d 592, 592, 778 N.Y.S.2d 703).

The defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is similarly without merit.   The defendant failed to demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for defense counsel's failure (see People v. Jordan, 44 A.D.3d 875, 876, 843 N.Y.S.2d 450).   The evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case, viewed in totality as of the time of representation, reveal that trial counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v. Britton, 49 A.D.3d 893, 894, 853 N.Y.S.2d 897, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 956, 863 N.Y.S.2d 140, 893 N.E.2d 446;  People v. Jean, 21 A.D.3d 499, 499, 799 N.Y.S.2d 740).

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