Opinion
2017–12381 Ind. No. 2/17
03-23-2022
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Devarl M. DUDLEY, appellant.
Gary E. Eisenberg, New City, NY, for appellant. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
Gary E. Eisenberg, New City, NY, for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., COLLEEN D. DUFFY, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Peter M. Forman, J.), rendered October 16, 2017, convicting him of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the People to elicit evidence of his prior bad acts (see People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 61 N.E. 286 ). Here, evidence that the defendant was selling drugs during and before the underlying incident completed the narrative of events, provided necessary background information, and was admissible to establish defendant's motive to commit the crimes of which he was convicted (see People v. Morales, 189 A.D.3d 1464, 1467, 137 N.Y.S.3d 387 ; People v. Helenese, 75 A.D.3d 653, 654, 907 N.Y.S.2d 223 ). Additionally, the court gave the jury appropriate limiting instructions, to which defense counsel did not object, as to the limited purpose for which that evidence was received (see People v. Morales, 189 A.D.3d at 1467, 137 N.Y.S.3d 387 ; People v. Bittrolff, 165 A.D.3d 690, 691, 85 N.Y.S.3d 181 ).
The County Court's Sandoval ruling (see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413 ) was a provident exercise of discretion, as it constituted an appropriate compromise which properly balanced the probative value of the proffered evidence against the prejudice to the defendant (see People v. Bragg, 161 A.D.3d 998, 77 N.Y.S.3d 435 ; People v. Walker, 141 A.D.3d 678, 678, 36 N.Y.S.3d 182 ).
The defendant's contention that New York's persistent felony offender scheme is unconstitutional is unpreserved for appellate review since it was not raised at the sentencing proceeding (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Rosen, 96 N.Y.2d 329, 335, 728 N.Y.S.2d 407, 752 N.E.2d 844 ; People v. Locenitt, 157 A.D.3d 905, 907–908, 66 N.Y.S.3d 908 ). In any event, the contention is without merit (see People v. Prindle, 29 N.Y.3d 463, 465–466, 58 N.Y.S.3d 280, 80 N.E.3d 1026 ; People v. Quinones, 12 N.Y.3d 116, 119, 879 N.Y.S.2d 1, 906 N.E.2d 1033 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.
DILLON, J.P., DUFFY, CONNOLLY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.