Case ID: ad3d_97/html/0763-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Gillespie, Appellant.
    [947 NYS2d 914]
   The defendant’s contentions regarding certain comments made by the prosecutor on summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Utley, 45 NY2d 908, 910 [1978]), and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Considering the totality of the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case, trial counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; see also People v Cass, 18 NY3d 553, 564 [2012]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Leventhal and Sgroi, JJ., concur.