Opinion
November 22, 1993
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim that reversible error occurred when the prosecutor elicited testimony that the defendant and his two accomplices purchased and smoked crack cocaine during their robbery spree is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Clarke, 81 N.Y.2d 777, 778). Moreover, reversal is not warranted in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. The testimony concerning the defendant's purchase and use of crack cocaine was so "inextricably interwoven" with the crimes here (see, People v Vails, 43 N.Y.2d 364), and so necessary to the prosecution's case (see, People v Kay, 120 A.D.2d 615), that no error occurred in its admission.
Also properly admitted was the testimony given by the defendant's accomplice, during redirect examination, that while he and the defendant were incarcerated at the Nassau County Correctional Facility he signed a statement exculpating the defendant, in the presence of the defendant and other inmates from the defendant's tier, because he was "under pressure all the time from people telling [him that he] was a snitch, and they were going to get [him] if [he] didn't sign the statement saying that [the defendant] didn't do anything" and "if [he] didn't [sign he] knew [he] would have bodily harm brought upon [him]". Where a party opens the door on cross-examination, as the defendant did here, "to matters not touched upon during the direct examination, a party has the right on redirect `to explain, clarify and fully elicit [the] question only partially examined' on cross-examination" (People v Melendez, 55 N.Y.2d 445, 451; People v Peoples, 143 A.D.2d 780, 781).
The defendant's contention that he was entitled to a criminal facilitation charge as a lesser-included offense of robbery in the third degree is without merit (see, People v Glover, 57 N.Y.2d 61).
Equally without merit is his claim that, because certain defendants who plead guilty may be sentenced to a lesser prison term under CPL 220.20 (1) (e) (criminal facilitation as a lesser-included offense for plea purposes), the sentence imposed following his trial and conviction for robbery in the third degree violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the laws. "The acceptance of plea negotiation as a legitimate process, in the course of which a defendant may be discouraged from asserting trial rights and forced to choose between the certainty of leniency in return for a plea or a heavier penalty if those trial rights are asserted, involves no constitutional violation" (People v Miller, 65 N.Y.2d 502, 510-511, cert denied 474 U.S. 951). Sullivan, J.P., Lawrence, O'Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.