Opinion
December 30, 1999
Appeal from Judgment of Jefferson County Court, Clary, J. — Burglary, 1st Degree.
Judgment unanimously affirmed.
PRESENT: GREEN, J. P., LAWTON, PIGOTT, JR., SCUDDER AND CALLAHAN, JJ.
Memorandum:
We reject defendant's contention that the testimony of the accomplice was not sufficiently corroborated ( see, CPL 60.22; People v. La Porte, 217 A.D.2d 821, 821-822). The evidence is legally sufficient to support the conviction ( see, People v. Yopp, 142 A.D.2d 982, 983, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 1051), and the verdict is not contrary to the weight of the evidence ( see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). Defendant's contention that the verdict is repugnant is not preserved for our review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Alfaro, 66 N.Y.2d 985, 987), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see, CPL 470.15[a]). The evidence, the law and the circumstances of this case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, establish that defendant received meaningful representation ( see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147). By failing to make a pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment based upon the discrepancy between the burglary charge listed in the cover sheet and the charge in the first count of the indictment ( see, CPL 210.20[a]; 210.25 Crim. Proc.), defendant waived his contention that the indictment is facially defective ( see, People v. Iannone, 45 N.Y.2d 589, 600; see also, People v. Dumblewski, 61 A.D.2d 875, 876). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Defendant's remaining contention is not preserved for our review ( see, CPL 470.05), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see, CPL 470.15[a]).