THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v IRVING LEACH, Appellant.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department
2007
[833 NYS2d 164]
DiBella, J.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in making its Sandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371, 378 [1974]).
To the extent that the defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel involve matter dehors the record, they may not be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v Velazquez, 21 AD3d 388 [2005]; People v Campbell, 6 AD3d 623 [2004]). To the extent these issues were raised in the defendant’s motion pursuant to
The defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the court’s instructions to the jury. A court is not “required to explain all the contentions of the parties or outline all the inconsistencies in the evidence” (People v Quinones, 184 AD2d 535, 536 [1992]; see People v Snyder, 294 AD2d 381, 382 [2002]). Viewing the charge as a whole, the court fairly instructed the jury on the correct principles of law to be applied to the case (see People v Rogers, 287 AD2d 524, 525 [2001]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Krausman and Balkin, JJ., concur.
