Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jermaine Wright, Also Known as Donovan J. Wright, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1997-02-18
Citations: 236 A.D.2d 567
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jermaine Wright, Also Known as Donovan J. Wright, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 236
Pages: 567–568

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jermaine Wright, Also Known as Donovan J. Wright, Appellant.
[654 NYS2d 637]

Opinion:
—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered October 31, 1994, convicting him of murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove that he acted with depraved indifference to human life, an element of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [2]), is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). In any event, 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]).
The defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to pursue certain issues at a Wade hearing. However, the defendant has failed to demonstrate that his attorney's actions were not motivated by strategy or by a reasonable conclusion regarding the merits of the identification issues (see, People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705). Based on the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case, the record reveals that the defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit (see, People v Payne, 88 NY2d 172). O'Brien, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.