From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Burgos

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jul 11, 2012
97 A.D.3d 689 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-07-11

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Jose BURGOS, appellant.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Allegra Glashausser of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Jeanette Lifschitz, and Tina Grillo of counsel), for respondent.


Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Allegra Glashausser of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Jeanette Lifschitz, and Tina Grillo of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hanophy, J.), rendered May 6, 2010, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, possession of burglar's tools, petit larceny, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review the challenges he now raises to portions of the prosecutor's summation ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Bey, 71 A.D.3d 1156, 1157, 898 N.Y.S.2d 189;People v. Philbert, 60 A.D.3d 698, 699, 874 N.Y.S.2d 540;People v. Gill, 54 A.D.3d 965, 864 N.Y.S.2d 135;People v. Gillespie, 36 A.D.3d 626, 831 N.Y.S.2d 83;People v. Siriani, 27 A.D.3d 670, 811 N.Y.S.2d 127). In any event, the challenged remarks were fair comment on the evidence, responsive to arguments and theories raised by the defense, or otherwise remained within the “broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument” ( People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 399, 446 N.Y.S.2d 9, 430 N.E.2d 885;see People v. Wilson, 77 A.D.3d 858, 908 N.Y.S.2d 885;People v. Bravo, 69 A.D.3d 870, 894 N.Y.S.2d 465;People v. Dorgan, 42 A.D.3d 505, 838 N.Y.S.2d 787;People v. Ravenell, 307 A.D.2d 977, 762 N.Y.S.2d 919;People v. Valdes, 291 A.D.2d 513, 738 N.Y.S.2d 223).

The sentence imposed was not excessive ( seeCPL 470.15[2][c], [6][b]; 470.20[6]; People v. Thompson, 60 N.Y.2d 513, 519, 470 N.Y.S.2d 551, 458 N.E.2d 1228;People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

DILLON, J.P., DICKERSON, BELEN and SGROI, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Burgos

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jul 11, 2012
97 A.D.3d 689 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

People v. Burgos

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Jose BURGOS, appellant.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Jul 11, 2012

Citations

97 A.D.3d 689 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
947 N.Y.S.2d 897
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 5540

Citing Cases

People v. Fuhrtz

05[2]; People v. Edwards, 118 A.D.3d 909, 987 N.Y.S.2d 452). In any event, the challenged cross-examination…

People v. Fuhrtz

The defendant's contention that various questions posed by the prosecutor during cross-examination and…