People v. Gonzalez

Feb 9, 2010
Versions:70 A.D.3d 855
893 N.Y.S.2d 843

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 [2007]). In any event, “this represents the exceptional case where the failure to give the circumstantial evidence charge was harmless error” (People v Brian, 84 NY2d 887, 889 [1994]; see People v Lopez, 28 AD3d 234, 235 [2006]).

The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, as defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; People v Lopez, 28 AD3d at 235). Dillon, J.P., Covello, Miller and Chambers, JJ., concur.