People v. GeorgePeople v. George
Defendant‘s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is unreviewable on direct appeal because it involves matters outside the record concerning counsel‘s choice of strategy (see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; People v Love, 57 NY2d 998 [1982]). On the existing record, to the extent it permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; see also Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]).
Defendant‘s challenge to the court‘s charge on the issue of the voluntariness of defendant‘s statements is unpreserved (see People v Hoke, 62 NY2d 1022 [1984]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim we would find that the court delivered a proper voluntariness charge. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Nardelli, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.