Opinion
2012-11-7
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Aaron GUTIERREZ, appellant.
Thomas Theophilos, Buffalo, N.Y., for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, Rona I. Kugler, and Jeanette Lifschitz of counsel), for respondent.
Thomas Theophilos, Buffalo, N.Y., for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, Rona I. Kugler, and Jeanette Lifschitz of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Roman, J.), rendered July 18, 2006, convicting him of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial because a court interpreter was unable to properly perform her duties is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Kowlessar, 82 A.D.3d 417, 418, 918 N.Y.S.2d 41;People v. Odum, 67 A.D.3d 1465, 1466, 890 N.Y.S.2d 241,cert. denied ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 326, 178 L.Ed.2d 212;People v. Zhang Wan, 203 A.D.2d 499, 610 N.Y.S.2d 597;People v. Ko, 133 A.D.2d 850, 851, 520 N.Y.S.2d 412), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Contrary to the defendant's contention, his challenge to the court interpreter's ability to perform her duties does not fall within the narrow category of errors which affect the mode of proceedings prescribed by law and are thus immune from the preservation requirement ( see People v. Kelly, 5 N.Y.3d 116, 799 N.Y.S.2d 763, 832 N.E.2d 1179;cf. People v. Mehmedi, 69 N.Y.2d 759, 513 N.Y.S.2d 100, 505 N.E.2d 610;People v. Ahmed, 66 N.Y.2d 307, 496 N.Y.S.2d 984, 487 N.E.2d 894).
Defense counsel's failure, inter alia, to object to the prosecutor's remarks during summation did not deprive the defendant of the effective assistance of counsel ( see People v. Stewart, 89 A.D.3d 1044, 1045, 933 N.Y.S.2d 112;People v. Whitehurst, 70 A.D.3d 1057, 1059, 895 N.Y.S.2d 523).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.