Opinion
2012-02-7
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Miguel RAMOS, Defendant–Appellant.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Angie Louie of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (John B.F. Martin of counsel), for respondent.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Angie Louie of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (John B.F. Martin of counsel), for respondent.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., ANDRIAS, DeGRASSE, RICHTER, ABDUS–SALAAM JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia Nunez, J.), rendered February 25, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of 5 years, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). The circumstances, viewed as a whole, supported the conclusion that defendant was a participant in a drug-selling operation being conducted out of a vacant apartment, and that he was a possessor of a large quantity of drugs contained in a knapsack in the apartment ( see People v. Jones, 72 A.D.3d 452, 900 N.Y.S.2d 8, lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 806, 908 N.Y.S.2d 166, 934 N.E.2d 900 [2010] ).
The People's summation did not deprive defendant of his right to a fair trial. Given the context, the prosecutor's reference to the dangers of undercover police work was not a “safe streets” argument ( see People v. Brown, 17 N.Y.3d 742, 743, 929 N.Y.S.2d 12, 952 N.E.2d 1004 [2011] ). Instead, this line of argument was a permissible rebuttal to defendant's argument that the police paperwork was inadequate ( see People v. Chandler, 265 A.D.2d 239, 697 N.Y.S.2d 594 [1999], lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 902, 707 N.Y.S.2d 386, 728 N.E.2d 985 [2000] ). The prosecutor's comment on the codefendant's absence at trial was improper, but this isolated error was not so prejudicial as to warrant a new trial, particularly since the court's jury charge included an admonition to draw no inference from the codefendant's absence. Defendant's remaining challenges to the prosecutor's summation are unpreserved ( see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 911, 912, 828 N.Y.S.2d 274, 861 N.E.2d 89 [2006] ), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal ( see People v. Overlee, 236 A.D.2d 133, 666 N.Y.S.2d 572 [1997], lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 976, 672 N.Y.S.2d 855, 695 N.E.2d 724 [1998]; People v. D'Alessandro, 184 A.D.2d 114, 118–119, 591 N.Y.S.2d 1001 [1992], lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 884, 597 N.Y.S.2d 945, 613 N.E.2d 977 [1993] ).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.