Opinion
Argued June 21, 1999
December 13, 1999
Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lipp, J.), rendered March 30, 1993, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree under Indictment No. 2395/91, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of 6 to 18 years imprisonment, and (2) a judgment of the same court (Aiello, J.), rendered June 23, 1997, convicting him of murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under Indictment No. 2422/91, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 25 years to life on his conviction of murder in the second degree, 12 1/2 to 25 years on his conviction of robbery in the first degree, and 7 1/2 to 15 years on his conviction of possession of a weapon in the second degree, to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the sentence imposed on the conviction of manslaughter in the first degree under Indictment No. 2395/91.
Richard L. Herzfeld, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Roseann B. MacKechnie, Ann Bordley, and Joseph Huttler of counsel), for respondent.
DANIEL W. JOY, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, HOWARD MILLER and SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment under Indictment No. 2395/91 is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the judgment under Indictment No. 2422/91 is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by providing that the terms of imprisonment imposed run concurrently with the term of imprisonment imposed under Indictment No. 2395/91; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim that the court did not conduct a sufficient inquiry of an allegedly unqualified prospective juror is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Fridic, 222 A.D.2d 220 ). In any event, the record fully supports the trial court's determination to dismiss the prospective juror whose comments to the court indicated that she was overly concerned with physical evidence and that she believed "word of mouth is not proof" (see,People v. White, 213 A.D.2d 507, 508; People v. Torres, 164 A.D.2d 923 ).
We find that the sentence imposed under Indictment No. 2422/91 is excessive to the extent indicated.
The defendant's remaining contentions lack merit.
JOY, J.P., KRAUSMAN, H. MILLER, and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.