Opinion
2015-07-29
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Ronald CARTER, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Ronald Zapata of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Kayonia L. Whetstone of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Ronald Zapata of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Kayonia L. Whetstone of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered September 4, 2013, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that certain comments made by the prosecutor during his opening statement and summation were improper and deprived him of a fair trial is largely unpreserved for appellate review, because he either failed to object, or made only general objections, to most of the challenged remarks ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Johnson, 127 A.D.3d 1234, 5 N.Y.S.3d 902; People v. Terry, 122 A.D.3d 882, 996 N.Y.S.2d 362; People v. Philips, 120 A.D.3d 1266, 992 N.Y.S.2d 104). In any event, the challenged remarks were fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom ( see People v. Ramrattan, 126 A.D.3d 1013, 6 N.Y.S.3d 131; People v. Williams, 123 A.D.3d 1152, 997 N.Y.S.2d 499; see also People v. Vargas, 168 A.D.2d 317, 562 N.Y.S.2d 650), fair response to the defense summation ( see People v. Johnson, 127 A.D.3d 1234, 5 N.Y.S.3d 902), or do not otherwise require reversal ( see People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 399, 446 N.Y.S.2d 9, 430 N.E.2d 885; People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109–110, 383 N.Y.S.2d 204, 347 N.E.2d 564; People v. Rivera, 128 A.D.3d 857, 9 N.Y.S.3d 119; People v. Philips, 120 A.D.3d 1266, 992 N.Y.S.2d 104).
Further, defense counsel's failure to object, or object specifically, to most of the challenged comments did not deprive the defendant of the effective assistance of counsel ( see People v. Williams, 123 A.D.3d 1152, 997 N.Y.S.2d 499; People v. Wallace, 123 A.D.3d 1151, 997 N.Y.S.2d 756; People v. Ervin, 118 A.D.3d 910, 912, 987 N.Y.S.2d 454). ENG, P.J., HALL, HINDS–RADIX and LaSALLE, JJ., concur.