Court Opinion

ID: 2786734
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-03-17 17:05:19.312116+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:18:52.032783
License: Public Domain

People v Olsen (2015 NY Slip Op 02078)

People v Olsen

2015 NY Slip Op 02078

Decided on March 17, 2015

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on March 17, 2015

Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Saxe, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, JJ.

14532 4075/10

[*1] The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
vThomas Olsen, Defendant-Appellant.

Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Bruce D. Austern of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas Olsen, appellant pro se.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Ryan Gee of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (A. Kirke Bartley, Jr., J.), rendered March 28, 2012, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted rape in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, and assault in the second degree and sentencing him to an aggregate term of six years, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations. The evidence supports the conclusion that defendant intended to have sexual
intercourse with the victim, and came dangerously close to doing so.	
Defendant's pro se ineffective assistance of counsel claims are unreviewable on direct appeal because they involve matters not reflected in, or fully explained by, the record (see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705 [1988]; People v Love, 57 NY2d 998 [1982]). Accordingly, since defendant has not made a CPL 440.10 motion, the merits of the ineffectiveness claims may not be addressed on appeal. In the alternative, to the extent the existing record permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards (see People [*2]v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]). Defendant's remaining pro se claims are without merit.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: MARCH 17, 2015
CLERK