Opinion
June 8, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by limiting the second round of the voir dire examination of prospective jurors to 15 minutes for each counsel and the third round to 10 minutes each. Under CPL 270.15 (1) (c), the court is directed to prevent questioning of prospective jurors that is repetitious or irrelevant (see, People v Boulware, 29 N.Y.2d 135, cert denied 405 U.S. 995; People v Pepper, 59 N.Y.2d 353), and the trial court properly intended to do this by imposing time limits. Moreover, the record indicates that counsel was given a "fair opportunity * * * to question about matters, not previously explored, which [were] relevant and material" (People v Boulware, 29 N.Y.2d 135, 140, supra). The defendant has failed to demonstrate that the chosen jurors were not impartial or unbiased (see, People v Pepper, 59 N.Y.2d 353, supra).
The defendant was properly adjudicated a persistent felony offender under Penal Law § 70.10 because the People met their burden of establishing that he had been previously convicted of two felonies for which he had received sentences in excess of one year (CPL 400.20; see, People v Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9). The defendant's bare conclusory allegation that his 1960 Pennsylvania conviction for burglary and larceny was not constitutionally obtained cannot remove that conviction from persistent felony offender consideration (see, CPL 400.20; see, People v Harris, supra; People v Sasso, 99 A.D.2d 558). Moreover, there is no support in the record for a finding that the defendant's guilty plea to the 1960 charges was not knowingly, voluntarily or intelligently entered (see, People v Terry, 117 A.D.2d 761, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 951).
Finally, the defendant's remaining contentions are also without merit. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Lawrence and Spatt, JJ., concur.