People v. Perez

279 A.D.2d 640, 719 N.Y.S.2d 877, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 824

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), rendered July 13, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, and burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he received the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Sinclair, 266 AD2d 482). “Mere losing tactics are not to be confused with ineffectiveness, and to sustain a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, proof of less than meaningful representation is required, rather than disagreement with counsel’s strategies and tactics” (People v Sinclair, supra, at 482).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Ritter, J. P., Altman, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.