People v Abraham

People v Abraham 2012 NY Slip Op 00462 Decided on January 26, 2012 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 January 26, 2012
Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Acosta, Román, JJ.
6619

[*1]The People of the State of New York, 48888C/05 Respondent,

v

Curtis Abraham, Defendant-Appellant.




Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Richard M.
Greenberg of counsel), and Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, New York
(Nicholas A. Duston of counsel), for appellant.
Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Christopher J.
Blira-Koessler of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic Massaro, J.), rendered April 22, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree and attempted assault in the second degree, and resentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 20 years and 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Following a remand from this Court (66 AD3d 412 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 769 [2010]), the court reimposed the original sentence. Defendant's constitutional claims regarding his sentence are unavailing (see People v Pena, 50 NY2d 400, 411-412 [1980], cert denied 449 US 1087 [1981]), and we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Defendant's claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the resentencing proceeding is unreviewable on direct appeal because it involves matters outside the record (see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; People v Love, 57 NY2d 998 [1982]). Defendant asserts that counsel failed to bring to the resentencing court's attention defendant's alleged desire to make a statement. However, the record does not establish that defendant wished to address the court, and there is no information in the record as to any advice from counsel in that regard. On [*2]the existing record, to the extent it permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JANUARY 26, 2012

CLERK