This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before

publication in the New York Reports.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

No. 144 

The People &c.,

 Respondent,

 v.

Louis Speaks,

 Appellant.

Nao Terai, for appellant.

Lori Glachman, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant was convicted, following a jury trial, of two

counts of robbery in the first degree and two counts of robbery

in the second degree. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial

- 1 -
- 2 - No. 144

court abused its discretion as a matter of law in permitting a

detective to testify about descriptions of the robbers given by

one testifying witness and one nontestifying witness. All but

one of defendant's challenges to this testimony are unpreserved

for our review because defense counsel only lodged a single-word

"hearsay" objection at trial (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19

[1995]). As to the preserved hearsay challenge to the testimony

about the nontestifying witness's description, that claim is

meritless. The testimony -- which was accompanied by a curative

instruction explaining that it was not admitted for its truth --

consisted of a generic description of the robbers that was

cumulative of nonhearsay descriptions provided by other trial

witnesses. It was also consistent with the visual depiction of

the robbers seen in a surveillance video. Under these

circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in

allowing the testimony as background information to explain why

the police were able to capture relevant surveillance footage

(see People v Tosca, 98 NY2d 660, 661 [2002]).

Defendant also argues that defense counsel's failure to

object to various comments made by the prosecutor during

summation deprived him of effective assistance of counsel. A

defendant receives effective assistance of counsel "[s]o long as

the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of a particular

case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the

representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful

- 2 -
- 3 - No. 144

representation" (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Here,

defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel ignores

the entirety of the representation defendant received at trial

and, further, is not supported on this record.

Throughout the course of the trial, defense counsel,

demonstrating his familiarity with the relevant law and the

particular facts of the case, vigorously advocated for defendant,

made proper objections and appropriate motions, competently

cross-examined witnesses, and presented a cogent defense case. 

As to the prosecutor's arguments in summation, defense counsel

objected to the arguments about defendant's medical condition and

then moved for a mistrial on this ground at the end of summation. 

The other challenged arguments were either fair comment on the

evidence, within the bounds of permissible rhetorical argument,

or appropriate response to arguments made in defendant's

summation (see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]). 

This is not a case where the prosecutor's comments were so "far

afield from acceptable argument" that "there [was] no apparent

strategic explanation for defense counsel's silence," thereby

depriving defendant of meaningful representation (People v

Wright, 25 NY3d 769, 780 [2015]). In sum, defendant received

effective assistance of counsel.

- 3 -
- 4 - No. 144

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges

Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein, Fahey and Garcia concur.

Decided October 20, 2016

- 4 -