The People, etc., respondent, v. Alberto Gonzalez, appellant. (2010)

Submitted-January 5, 2010

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lasak, J.), rendered September 5, 2007, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that because all of the evidence in the case was circumstantial, the Supreme Court should have given a circumstantial evidence charge to the jury.   However, since the defendant did not request such a charge, or object to the charge as given, his contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Reyes, 45 AD3d 785, 786).   In any event, “this represents the exceptional case where the failure to give the circumstantial evidence charge was harmless error” (People v. Brian, 84 N.Y.2d 887, 889;  see People v. Lopez, 28 AD3d 234, 235).

The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, as defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712;  People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147;  People v. Lopez, 28 AD3d at 235).

DILLON, J.P., COVELLO, MILLER and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court