A state appeals court has upheld the manslaughter conviction of a Kill Buck woman who killed her 1-year-old daughter in 2015.

Leslie Finch was 26 when she was convicted in Cattaraugus County Court on charges of manslaughter, reckless assault of a child and endangering the welfare of a child. The Olean Times Herald reported that Finch was sentenced to 20 years in prison by Cattaraugus County Court Judge William Boller.

Prosecutors said Finch caused fatal injuries to her daughter, Mila Whipple, when she violently shook the baby on April 26, 2015. Authorities were called to Finch’s home following reports that a child had stopped breathing. Mila was rushed to Women and Children’s Hospital in Buffalo, where she died.

The Salamanca woman was charged in the death in May 2015.

Finch was acquitted of second-degree murder and first-degree assault charges.

Finch appealed her conviction to the Fourth Department Appellate Court, alleging she did not validly waive her right to a jury trial, though the Appellate Division ruled that the conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence. The appellate judges also ruled against Finch’s contention that the verdict went against the weight of the evidence.

Finch also contended that evidence had been improperly admitted into the non-jury trial, but the justices ruled the issue had not been preserved for their review because there was no objection to the evidence during trial. The court also ruled that Finch received effective counsel. Justices cited People v. Lozada, a 2018 decision, which opined that a defendant’s speculation that better cross-examination of witnesses might have undermined the witnesses’ credibility is not enough to establish that legal counsel was ineffective.

“With respect to defendant’s claim that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to produce an expert witness at trial to rebut the expert testimony introduced by the People, defendant has not established that ” ‘such expert testimony was available, that it would have assisted the (court) in its determination or that (she) was prejudiced by its absence,'” the justices wrote. “Contrary to defendant’s further claim, she was not denied effective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel’s failure to conduct an adequate cross-examination of certain prosecution witnesses.”

The appellate court also ruled that the sentence given to Finch is not unduly harsh or severe.