People v. Rodriguez

Dec 1, 2009
Versions:68 A.D.3d 789
888 N.Y.2d 894

The defendant contends that his due process rights were violated by the detective‘s failure to videotape his interrogation. This argument is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, is without merit (see People v Hodges, 58 AD3d 642 [2009]; People v Nelson, 52 AD3d 534 [2008]; People v Rosas, 30 AD3d 545 [2006], affd 8 NY3d 493 [2007]).

The defendant failed to demonstrate that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]). A review of the record in its entirety reveals that defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Rios, 213 AD2d 726 [1995]; People v Abdullah, 100 AD2d 550 [1984], cert denied 474 US 919 [1985]; People v Tonge, 93 NY2d 838, 840 [1999]).

The defendant‘s remaining contentions, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Eng, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.