People v. Clarke

—Judgment unanimously modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and as modified affirmed in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant’s contentions that the trial court erred in failing to give a circumstantial evidence charge and in improperly restricting defense counsel’s opening statement are not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 , 621), is sufficient to support the conviction, and the verdict is not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 , 495). Defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 , 147). The remaining contentions raised in the pro se supplemental brief are based upon matters outside the record and are not subject to review on direct appeal (see, People v Simmons, 221 AD2d 994 ; People v Ford, 184 AD2d 1013 , Iv denied 80 NY2d 929 ).

In our view, the sentence of 15 years to life imposed upon the burglary conviction is unduly harsh. Although defendant