People v. Bradford

137 A.D.3d 928, 25 N.Y.S.3d 902

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: March 9, 2016
• Docket: 2014-04564
• Status: Published

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.), rendered April 10, 2014, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, possession of burglar’s tools, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the Supreme Court’s instructions to the jury is unpreserved for appellate review, since he failed to request specific instructions or object to the court’s charge as given (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Ramos, 127 AD3d 996, 997 [2015]; People v Williams, 38 AD3d 925, 926 [2007]). In any event, the charge as a whole adequately conveyed to the jury the proper principles of law (see People v Umali, 10 NY3d 417, 428 [2008]; People v Barnes, 120 AD3d 1355 [2014]).

Further, on this record, defense counsel’s performance was not ineffective for failure to object to the instructions as given. Viewing defense counsel’s performance in its totality, counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Adams, 55 AD3d 616 [2008]).

Eng, P.J., Rivera, Hall and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.