Opinion
2014-12-24
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Junarian WALKER, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Steven R. Bernhard of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Thomas M. Ross, and Claibourne I. Henry of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Steven R. Bernhard of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Thomas M. Ross, and Claibourne I. Henry of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, SANDRA L. SGROI, and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ingram, J.), rendered March 2, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), and attempted assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the admission of certain police testimony improperly implied that a nontestifying alleged accomplice identified the defendant to the police ( see People v. Latta, 295 A.D.2d 449, 743 N.Y.S.2d 315; People v. Martinez, 269 A.D.2d 608, 704 N.Y.S.2d 826; see also People v. Johnson, 7 A.D.3d 732, 733, 777 N.Y.S.2d 190; People v. Jones, 305 A.D.2d 698, 699, 760 N.Y.S.2d 227), and violated the Confrontation Clause ( seeU.S. Const. 6th Amend.; Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177; People v. Berry, 49 A.D.3d 888, 854 N.Y.S.2d 507). However, the defendant failed to preserve these contentions for appellate review ( see People v. Rush, 44 A.D.3d 799, 800, 843 N.Y.S.2d 392; People v. Marino, 21 A.D.3d 430, 431, 800 N.Y.S.2d 439; People v. Mack, 14 A.D.3d 517, 787 N.Y.S.2d 397). In any event, the evidence of the defendant's guilt, without reference to either alleged error, was overwhelming, and there is no reasonable possibility that either alleged error might have contributed to the defendant's conviction. Thus, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787; People v. Kelly, 58 A.D.3d 868, 869, 872 N.Y.S.2d 499; People v. Rush, 44 A.D.3d 799, 800, 843 N.Y.S.2d 392).
The defendant, in his pro se supplemental brief, challenges as improper certain of the prosecutor's summation remarks. The subject remarks constituted fair comment on the evidence and were not improper under the circumstances of this case ( see People v. Williams, 107 A.D.3d 746, 747, 966 N.Y.S.2d 225; People v. Wright, 90 A.D.3d 679, 933 N.Y.S.2d 887; People v. Ravenell, 307 A.D.2d 977, 978, 762 N.Y.S.2d 919).
The record, as a whole, shows that the defendant was afforded the effective assistance of counsel ( see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584).