People v. Mitchell

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the representation received by defendant, viewed in its entirety, was meaningful (see, People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 798-799; People v Trait, 139 AD2d 937, 938, lv denied 72 NY2d 867). Defendant further contends that errors in Supreme Court’s instructions to the jury mandate reversal. Because no objection was made to those instructions, any error has not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Thomas,…