Opinion
2012-11-21
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Isaac RAY, appellant.
Beverly Van Ness, New York, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Judith R. Sternberg and Barbara Kornblau of counsel; Danielle Shure and Jordan Hoch on the brief), for respondent.
Beverly Van Ness, New York, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Judith R. Sternberg and Barbara Kornblau of counsel; Danielle Shure and Jordan Hoch on the brief), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., REINALDO E. RIVERA, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), rendered September 7, 2010, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improperly permitted Detective Jeffrey Gross, who was not a witness to the crime in question, to testify that, in his opinion, the person depicted in a surveillance video was the defendant, is unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Serrano, 74 A.D.3d 1104, 1106, 904 N.Y.S.2d 711;People v. Kelly, 67 A.D.3d 706, 707, 886 N.Y.S.2d 899). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit, as the opinion testimony of Detective Gross, who had encountered the defendant on numerous occasions over more than 15 years, was of assistance to the jury, particularly since the defendant had changed his appearance after the commission of the crime ( see People v. Rivera, 259 A.D.2d 316, 317, 684 N.Y.S.2d 787;People v. Morgan, 214 A.D.2d 809, 810, 625 N.Y.S.2d 673;People v. Russell, 165 A.D.2d 327, 332, 567 N.Y.S.2d 548,affd.79 N.Y.2d 1024, 584 N.Y.S.2d 428, 594 N.E.2d 922).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his motionfor a mistrial following testimony from Detective Rhoderick Barrett that, during the course of the investigation, he “went through some of the old burglary cases.” The Supreme Court sustained defense counsel's immediate objection, struck the statement, and gave a prompt curative instruction, which was sufficient to alleviate any prejudice ( see People v. Hicks, 84 A.D.3d 1402, 1402–1403, 924 N.Y.S.2d 551;People v. Brescia, 41 A.D.3d 613, 613–614, 836 N.Y.S.2d 432).
The defendant received meaningful representation ( see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584;People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).
The defendant's contention in his pro se supplemental brief that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions is unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15(5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court improperly penalized him for exercising his right to a jury trial, because he did not set forth the issue on the record at the time of sentencing ( see People v. Hurley, 75 N.Y.2d 887, 888, 554 N.Y.S.2d 469, 553 N.E.2d 1017;People v. Garcia, 66 A.D.3d 699, 885 N.Y.S.2d 771;People v. Norris, 34 A.D.3d 500, 501, 823 N.Y.S.2d 526;People v. Best, 295 A.D.2d 441, 441, 743 N.Y.S.2d 313). In any event, the fact that the sentence imposed after trial was greater than the sentence offered during plea negotiations is not, standing alone, an indication that the defendant was punished for exercising his right to trial ( see People v. Pena, 50 N.Y.2d 400, 411, 429 N.Y.S.2d 410, 406 N.E.2d 1347,cert. denied449 U.S. 1087, 101 S.Ct. 878, 66 L.Ed.2d 814;People v. Jimenez, 84 A.D.3d 1268, 1269, 923 N.Y.S.2d 354;People v. Norris, 34 A.D.3d at 501, 823 N.Y.S.2d 526;People v. Best, 295 A.D.2d at 442, 743 N.Y.S.2d 313). Moreover, 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, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05 [2] ) and, in any event, without merit.