Lahtinen, J.Page 1046
Originally indicted on 21 counts (including three B felonies and six C felonies) for alleged sexual misconduct perpetrated upon three children, defendant ultimately was found guilty following a jury trial of six counts (three D felonies, one E felony and two misdemeanors). He now appeals contending that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel. We are unpersuaded and, thus, affirm.
The well-settled standard for a claim of ineffective assistance is "whether counsel's performance `viewed in totality' amounts to `meaningful representation'" ( People v Turner, 5 NY3d 476, 480, quoting People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147; see People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 565). This standard is not "amenable to precise demarcation" and necessarily hinges upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case ( People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712; see People v Taylor, 1 NY3d 174, 177; People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 798-799). "[A] reviewing court must avoid confusing `true ineffectiveness with mere losing tactics and according undue significance to retrospective analysis'" ( People v Benevento, supra at 712, quoting People v Baldi, supra at 146). In short, "[t]he Constitution guarantees a defendant a fair trial, not a perfect one" ( People v Henry, supra at 565).
The purported errors ascribed to trial counsel include, among others, failing to use a peremptory challenge as to a juror after County Court denied counsel's request to strike her for cause, failing to object to leading questions (although such questions are not identified), and cross-examining the children witnesses in a respectful fashion rather than "demoniz[ing]" them. These and the other alleged errors asserted by defendant are, at best, speculative and reflect efforts to second-guess trial strategy. Indeed, review of the record reveals that counsel made appropriate motions, successfully precluded the prosecution from inquiring about defendant's prior convictions, conducted a meaningful voir dire of prospective jurors, made cogent opening and closing statements, effectively cross-examined witnesses, interjected appropriate objections, presented evidence in support of defendant, and obtained dismissal or acquittal of numerous charges, including the most serious ones.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.