Opinion
2013-05-3
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Harold HALL, Defendant–Appellant.
D.J. & J.A. Cirando, Esqs., Syracuse (Bradley E. Keem of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. David W. Foley, District Attorney, Mayville (Laurie M. Beckerink of Counsel), for Respondent.
D.J. & J.A. Cirando, Esqs., Syracuse (Bradley E. Keem of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. David W. Foley, District Attorney, Mayville (Laurie M. Beckerink of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, kidnapping in the first degree (Penal Law § 135.25 [2][a] [intent to inflict physical injury] ) and assault in the second degree (§ 120.05[2] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, County Court properly refused to suppress the statements that he made to the Sheriff's Deputy who transported him back to New York after he was apprehended in Ohio. The court properly determined that those statements were admissible because they were not “ ‘provoked, induced [or] encouraged by police conduct or interrogation’ ..., but were made voluntarily and spontaneously in the course of a dialogue initiated and continued by defendant” ( People v. Johnson, 277 A.D.2d 702, 706, 717 N.Y.S.2d 668,lv. denied96 N.Y.2d 831, 729 N.Y.S.2d 451, 754 N.E.2d 211;see generally People v. Gonzales, 75 N.Y.2d 938, 939, 555 N.Y.S.2d 681, 554 N.E.2d 1269,cert. denied498 U.S. 833, 111 S.Ct. 99, 112 L.Ed.2d 70).
Defendant failed to object to the stenographer's alleged failure to transcribe the proceedings during brief pauses in the jury selection process, and thus he failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was improperly absent from the courtroom during those pauses ( see People v. Vasquez, 89 N.Y.2d 521, 534, 655 N.Y.S.2d 870, 678 N.E.2d 482,cert. denied sub nom. Cordero v. Lalor, 522 U.S. 846, 118 S.Ct. 131, 139 L.Ed.2d 80;People v. Jacobs, 298 A.D.2d 954, 955, 748 N.Y.S.2d 110,lv. denied99 N.Y.2d 559, 754 N.Y.S.2d 212, 784 N.E.2d 85). In any event, the record establishes that defendant was in fact in the courtroom during the brief pauses.
Contrary to defendant's further contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting in evidence photographs portraying the victim's injuries ( see generally People v. Stevens, 76 N.Y.2d 833, 835, 560 N.Y.S.2d 119, 559 N.E.2d 1278). “The general rule is that photographs of the [victim's injuries] are admissible if[, inter alia,] they tend ... to illustrate or elucidate other relevant evidence” ( People v. Pobliner, 32 N.Y.2d 356, 369, 345 N.Y.S.2d 482, 298 N.E.2d 637,rearg. denied33 N.Y.2d 657, 348 N.Y.S.2d 1030, 303 N.E.2d 710,cert. denied416 U.S. 905, 94 S.Ct. 1609, 40 L.Ed.2d 110) and, here, the photographs were probative with respect to, among other things, the physical injury element of assault in the second degree ( see generally People v. Davis, 39 A.D.3d 1241, 1242, 835 N.Y.S.2d 784,lv. denied9 N.Y.3d 864, 840 N.Y.S.2d 894, 872 N.E.2d 1200;People v. Butera, 23 A.D.3d 1066, 1068, 803 N.Y.S.2d 856,lv. denied6 N.Y.3d 774, 811 N.Y.S.2d 341, 844 N.E.2d 796,6 N.Y.3d 832, 814 N.Y.S.2d 80, 847 N.E.2d 377).
Defendant's general motion for a trial order of dismissal is insufficient to preserve for our review his contention that the verdict is not supported by legally sufficient evidence ( see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919). In any event, that contention is without merit. Contrary to defendant's further contention, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).
Defendant's contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on the failure of defense counsel to object to the alleged inadequacy of the presentence report “is raised for the first time in his reply brief and therefore is not properly before us” ( People v. Sponburgh, 61 A.D.3d 1415, 1416, 877 N.Y.S.2d 585,lv. denied12 N.Y.3d 929, 884 N.Y.S.2d 711, 912 N.E.2d 1092). In any event, that contention is without merit inasmuch as “defendant had every opportunity to advise County Court of any mitigating factors during sentencing” ( People v. Singh, 16 A.D.3d 974, 978, 792 N.Y.S.2d 241,lv. denied5 N.Y.3d 769, 801 N.Y.S.2d 263, 834 N.E.2d 1273). In addition, with respect to the remaining grounds raised in support of defendant's contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, we conclude that “the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of [this] particular case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation” ( People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was denied a fair trial based on two remarks made by the prosecutor during summation ( see People v. Dillon, 38 A.D.3d 1211, 1211, 834 N.Y.S.2d 890;People v. Black, 38 A.D.3d 1283, 1286, 832 N.Y.S.2d 375,lv. denied8 N.Y.3d 982, 838 N.Y.S.2d 485, 869 N.E.2d 661). In any event, that contention is without merit. The two isolated remarks did not exceed the “broad bounds of rhetorical comment” permitted on summation ( People v. McEathron, 86 A.D.3d 915, 916, 926 N.Y.S.2d 249,lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 975, 950 N.Y.S.2d 358, 973 N.E.2d 768 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Williams, 28 A.D.3d 1059, 1061, 813 N.Y.S.2d 606,affd.8 N.Y.3d 854, 831 N.Y.S.2d 367, 863 N.E.2d 588). Furthermore, the remarks were not so egregious or improper as to deny defendant a fair trial ( see People v. Dexter, 259 A.D.2d 952, 954, 688 N.Y.S.2d 289,affd.94 N.Y.2d 847, 703 N.Y.S.2d 64, 724 N.E.2d 759;Black, 38 A.D.3d at 1286, 832 N.Y.S.2d 375).
The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and we conclude that they are without merit.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.