People v. DiPietro

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the reasonable doubt charge given by County Court was confusing. We disagree. The charge was identical to the pattern jury charge of 1 CJI(NY) 6.20 with the exception of three words, none of which renders the charge confusing. We also reject the contention that defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel. “[T]he evidence, the law, and the circumstances of [this] case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation” (Peo ple v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 , 147; see, People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184 , 187). We have reviewed the remaining contentions raised in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Dwyer, J. — Rape, 1st Degree.) Present — Hayes, J. P., Hurlbutt, Scudder and Kehoe, JJ.