Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James Gillespie, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2012-07-18
Citations: 97 A.D.3d 763
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Gillespie, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 97
Pages: 763–764

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Gillespie, Appellant.
[947 NYS2d 914]

Opinion:
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.