Opinion
2014-07-23
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Michael AVILES, appellant.
Michael G. Paul, New City, N.Y., for appellant. Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Carrie A. Ciganek of counsel), for respondent.
Michael G. Paul, New City, N.Y., for appellant.Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Carrie A. Ciganek of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), rendered April 24, 2012, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree and criminally negligent homicide, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the County Court erroneously denied the severance motion of his codefendant, since the defendant affirmatively withdrew his own application for a severance and did not otherwise join in the codefendant's motion ( see People v. McGee, 68 N.Y.2d 328, 333–334, 508 N.Y.S.2d 927, 501 N.E.2d 576;People v. Islam, 22 A.D.3d 599, 600, 804 N.Y.S.2d 329;People v. Ahmr, 22 A.D.3d 593, 594, 804 N.Y.S.2d 331;see also People v. Mack, 89 A.D.3d 864, 865, 932 N.Y.S.2d 163;People v. Turnbull, 52 A.D.3d 747, 747, 860 N.Y.S.2d 189). The defendant's decision to withdraw his severance motion reflected “a deliberate strategic choice,” and, under the circumstances, the defendant should not be heard to complain simply because his chosen strategy proved unsuccessful ( People v. Barbaran, 118 A.D.2d 578, 580, 499 N.Y.S.2d 186;see People v. Cruz, 144 A.D.2d 686, 687, 535 N.Y.S.2d 39;People v. Hernandez, 33 A.D.2d 747, 747, 305 N.Y.S.2d 901,affd.28 N.Y.2d 522, 319 N.Y.S.2d 70, 267 N.E.2d 883).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, evidence of the child victim's prior injuries was properly admitted to show that the injuries that caused her death were not accidental ( see People v. Henson, 33 N.Y.2d 63, 71–73, 349 N.Y.S.2d 657, 304 N.E.2d 358;see People v. Allah, 13 A.D.3d 639, 789 N.Y.S.2d 499;People v. Sims, 110 A.D.2d 214, 221, 494 N.Y.S.2d 114). The introduction of such evidence is particularly warranted where, as here, “the crime charged has occurred in the privacy of the home and the facts are not easily unraveled” ( People v. Henson, 33 N.Y.2d at 72, 349 N.Y.S.2d 657, 304 N.E.2d 358).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, reversal is not warranted due to the late disclosure of certain Rosario material ( see People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, 213 N.Y.S.2d 448, 173 N.E.2d 881), as the defendant failed to show that he suffered substantial prejudice from any delay in disclosure ( see People v. Jingzhi Li, 104 A.D.3d 704, 705, 960 N.Y.S.2d 215;People v. Uka, 92 A.D.3d 907, 907–908, 938 N.Y.S.2d 814;People v. Chia Yen Yun, 35 A.D.3d 494, 495, 826 N.Y.S.2d 367). To the extent that the defendant contends that the People's failure to disclose certain mental health records constituted a Rosarioviolation, this contention is without merit. There was no evidence in the record that this material existed ( see People v. Tieman, 112 A.D.3d 975, 976, 978 N.Y.S.2d 67).
The prosecutor's reference during summation to the defendant's statement to the codefendant was improper, as the prosecutor's reference to the statement was precluded by an earlier court ruling. However, the prosecutor's single improper comment was an isolated instance and not so egregious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, particularly, where, as here, the trial court, as the factfinder, is presumed to have considered only competent evidence in reaching its verdict ( see People v. Ford, 90 A.D.3d 1299, 1302, 935 N.Y.S.2d 368;People v. Weinberg, 75 A.D.3d 612, 614, 904 N.Y.S.2d 906;People v. Pruchnicki, 74 A.D.3d 1820, 1821–1822, 902 N.Y.S.2d 752;People v. Concepcion, 266 A.D.2d 227, 697 N.Y.S.2d 697).
The defendant's remaining contentions, that certain statements he made to law enforcement officials should have been suppressed because he was intoxicated, exhausted, and experiencing grief, and that the County Court improperly considered certain material contained in a presentence investigation report at the sentencing proceeding, are unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2] ), and we decline to reach them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675). RIVERA, J.P., BALKIN, CHAMBERS and MILLER, JJ., concur.