Opinion
March 10, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kooper, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
The People clearly sustained their burden of proving the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The record reveals that the shooting death of the victim occurred during the course and in furtherance of a robbery being committed by the defendant and three companions. While it was suggested at the trial that the murder might have been prompted by a personal motive of one of the robbers, the evidence is overwhelmingly contrary to such a finding. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, e.g., People v. Di Girolamo, 108 A.D.2d 755, lv denied 64 N.Y.2d 1133), we conclude that there was ample basis to sustain the verdict convicting the defendant of felony murder (see, Penal Law § 125.25; People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620).
We further reject the defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The record indicates that defense counsel represented his client with both vigor and competence. The mere fact that the defense proved unsuccessful cannot be equated with ineffective assistance of counsel. Under the totality of the circumstances presented in this record, we cannot conclude that the defendant was denied meaningful representation (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; People v Dudley, 110 A.D.2d 652). Additionally, we find the sentence imposed to be well within both statutory and discretionary bounds and neither harsh nor excessive in light of the instant offenses (see, People v. Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302; People v Flores, 101 A.D.2d 657; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mollen, P.J., Lazer, Eiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.