People v. Lowe , 656 N.Y.S.2d 1006 ( 1997 )

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant has not demonstrated that he was denied a fair trial by less than meaningful representation (see, People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184, 187; People v Hobot, 84 NY2d 1021, 1022). " '[A] simple disagreement with strategies, tactics or the scope of possible cross-examination, weighed long after trial, does not suffice’ to satisfy defendant’s burden of establishing ineffective assistance of counsel” (People v Brandon, 237 AD2d 980 [decided herewith], quoting People v Flores, supra, at 187). Defendant was not deprived of his statutory right to a speedy trial. The People announced their readiness for trial within six months of the commencement of the criminal action (see, CPL 30.30 [1] [a]). The record does not support the contention that defendant was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial (see, People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442, 445). County Court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that defendant could be cross-examined with respect to four prior convictions (see, People v Moody, 229 AD2d 936). By rejecting the court’s offer to submit to the jury criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree as a lesser included offense, defendant waived his present contention that the court erred in failing to submit that charge (see, People v Campbell, 166 AD2d 183, lv denied 77 NY2d 837). The court properly permitted a prosecution witness to testify that defendant’s appearance had changed in the three-day period between the crime and defendant’s arrest (see, People v Russell, 79 NY2d 1024, 1025). Finally, the verdict is not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495), and the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Cayuga County Court, Corning, J.—Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.