People v. FieldsPeople v. Fields
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant‘s contention, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), the evidence was legally sufficient to establish his guilt of attempted robbery in the first degree under an accomplice theory of liability beyond a reasonable doubt (see
The defendant was not deprived of the right to a fair trial by the trial court‘s Sandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]; People v Brightly, 91 AD3d 667 [2012]; People v Washington, 81 AD3d 991, 993 [2011]; People v Taylor, 18 AD3d 783, 784 [2005]; People v Footman, 233 AD2d 405 [1996]).
“The right to effective assistance of counsel is guaranteed by the Federal and State Constitutions” (People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 708 [1988]; see
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.