Opinion
2015-06-10
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Carl BEDEAU, appellant.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (William B. Carney of counsel), for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Victor Barall of counsel), for respondent.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (William B. Carney of counsel), for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Victor Barall of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), rendered January 8, 2013, convicting him of assault in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's handling of certain jury notes violated the procedure set forth by the Court of Appeals in People v. O'Rama, 78 N.Y.2d 270, 277–278, 574 N.Y.S.2d 159, 579 N.E.2d 189 is unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Ramirez, 15 N.Y.3d 824, 826, 909 N.Y.S.2d 1, 935 N.E.2d 791), and we decline to reach the contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Since the jury merely requested readbacks of the elements of the charged offenses, and defense counsel had notice of the contents of the notes before the Supreme Court gave its formal responses, the alleged errors did not constitute mode of proceedings errors that would obviate the preservation requirement ( see People v. Alcide, 21 N.Y.3d 687, 692, 976 N.Y.S.2d 432, 998 N.E.2d 1056; People v. Ramirez, 15 N.Y.3d at 826, 909 N.Y.S.2d 1, 935 N.E.2d 791; People v. Santiago, 117 A.D.3d 759, 985 N.Y.S.2d 153; People v. Woodrow, 89 A.D.3d 1158, 1160, 932 N.Y.S.2d 236).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).