Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Richmond County (Diana Boyar, J.), rendered May 17, 2010.
People v Goldson (Marcia)
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
Decided on April 13, 2012
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., WESTON and RIOS, JJ
The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree and resisting arrest.
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
In 2005, defendant was charged with obstructing governmental administration in the second degree (Penal Law § 195.05) and resisting arrest (Penal Law § 205.30). Defendant's first trial, in 2008, ended in a mistrial. After a retrial in 2010, defendant was convicted of both charges. During her sentencing statement, defendant alleged that her attorney, among other things, had failed to elicit testimony about prior attempts by the police to execute fictitious warrants, had failed to elicit testimony and present records documenting the medical care she had received as a result of the incident, and had "doze[d] off" during testimony. On appeal, defendant contends that the judgment of conviction should be reversed because she received the ineffective assistance of counsel, there was attorney misconduct after the verdict, and her rights to a speedy trial were violated.
Insofar as defendant's contention that she received the ineffective assistance of counsel is based on matters dehors the record, it cannot be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v Haynes, 70 AD3d 718 ; People v Ali, 55 AD3d 919 ; People v Drago, 50 AD3d 920 ). To the extent that review is possible, we find that defendant's trial counsel provided her with meaningful representation under the New York State standard (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712-713 ). Moreover, the attorney's performance could not be characterized as either deficient or prejudicial to defendant and, thus, was also in accordance with the federal standard (see US Const Amend VI; Strickland v Washington, 466 US 688 ).
Defendant's contention regarding her attorney's alleged misconduct lacks merit since the conduct took place after the verdict and, in any event, did not rise to the level of misconduct. In addition, defendant's speedy trial contentions were not raised by motion in the Criminal Court and, thus, are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 ; People v Jordan, 62 NY2d 825, 826 ).
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Pesce, P.J., Weston and Rios, ...