People v Mackie

People v Mackie 2012 NY Slip Op 01762 Decided on March 13, 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 March 13, 2012
Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Freedman, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
7058 6140/07

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Loren Mackie, Defendant-Appellant.




Stanley Neustadter, Cardozo School of Law, New York (Jill
Harrington of counsel), for appellant.
Loren Mackie, appellant pro se.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Philip
Morrow of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered June 22, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 20 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court's Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203 [2002]). The court properly permitted the People to cross-examine defendant about uncharged crimes that were not unduly prejudicial, and were probative of defendant's willingness to place self-interest ahead of principle or the interests of society. This evidence was received solely to impeach defendant's credibility as a witness, and there was no need for it to be independently admissible under the principles of People v Molineux (168 NY 264 [1901]).

Defendant's pro se ineffective assistance of counsel claim is unreviewable on direct appeal because it primarily involves matters outside the record. On the existing record, to the extent it permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and [*2]federal standards (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; see also Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]).

We have considered and rejected the remaining claims contained in defendant's main and pro se briefs.

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

ENTERED: MARCH 13, 2012

CLERK