Opinion
May 16, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J., Naro, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
With regard to the defendant's conviction under indictment No. 5753/85, the defendant's claim that the closure of the courtroom during the court's charge to the jury deprived him of his right to a public trial has not been preserved for appellate review and, in any event, it is without merit. As recently stated by the Court of Appeals, "it cannot be said to be an unreasonable limitation on public access — after inviting all those present to remain — to lock the doors so that the charge may be conveyed without disruption" (People v Colon, 71 N.Y.2d 410, 417).
The defendant's claims that he was prejudiced by the prosecutor's comments during summation have not been properly preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951; People v Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865). In any event, in light of the overwhelming proof of guilt and the court's repeated instructions to the jury, any prejudice suffered by the defendant was harmless, and did not deprive him of a fair trial (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
Furthermore, inasmuch as the defendant failed to move to withdraw his pleas under indictments Nos. 5613/85 and 5715/85, he has failed to preserve for appellate review any challenge to their sufficiency (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636; People v Smith, 121 A.D.2d 410). In any event, a review of the minutes of the plea proceedings reveals that the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily pleaded guilty to both charges (see, Boykin v Alabama, 395 U.S. 238; People v Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9), and that the defendant's allocutions established the requisite elements of the crimes of robbery in the third degree and attempted robbery in the second degree. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.