With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the petitioner’s attorney did not even object to the introduction of the hearsay. 11 . The New York Court of Appeals may not review a claim that a sentence was excessive. See People v. Miles, 61 N.Y.2d 635, 471 N.Y.S.2d 849, 459 N.E.2d 1286 (1983). 12 . I recognize that the Second Circuit has ruled that “the attorney’s omission of a meritorious claim cannot be excused simply because an intermediate appellate court would have rejected it." Mayo, 13 F.3d at 533-34. My conclusion that appellate counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to raise the hearsay argument is based on my conclusion that, relatively speaking, that argument was weaker than those which were raised. 13 . See, e.g., People v. Lyons, 106 A.D.2d 471, 482 N.Y.S.2d 567, 569 (2d Dep’t 1984) (<HOLDING>); People v. Tucker, 102 A.D.2d 535, 477

A: holding that the defendant received an unfair trial in part because the prosecutor  elicited testimony about a getaway car that was owned by a suspected accomplice even though there was nothing to link that car to defendant and stating that such a use of irrelevant evidence is not to be condoned especially where it has prejudicial potential
B: holding that the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search
C: holding that it was prejudicial error to fail to give such a cautionary instruction even where the defendant did not object at trial to the lack of such an instruction when the accomplice testimony was uncorroborated
D: holding that an arrest to retrieve car keys where ownership of the car was in dispute was not supported by probable cause
A.