Opinion
December 24, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Farlo, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
While we recognize that the admission of the pretrial statement of the nontestifying codefendant was improper (see, Cruz v. State of New York, 481 U.S. 186; Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123), under the circumstances here the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Hamlin, 71 N.Y.2d 750; People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
The defendant and the other four participants were arrested shortly after a robbery in the immediate vicinity of the scene of the crime. Property belonging to the complainant was recovered from them. The defendant was tried with the codefendant Reed, who had made a statement admitting that he, Reed, had held a "blade" to the complainant's neck as the defendant and the others went through the complainant's pockets.
Initially, the defendant denied any involvement and claimed that he had received a calculator, which was recovered from his person, as a gift from his codefendant Reed. After the police officers informed the defendant that they believed he was lying, the defendant made another statement admitting his presence during the robbery. Thereafter, the defendant brought the police officers to the area where they recovered the remainder of the complainant's property.
Although his own statement minimized his involvement, the defendant was identified by the complainant as one of the participants in the robbery. In light of this overwhelming proof of guilt, we find that there is no reasonable possibility that the outcome of the trial as to this defendant would have been different had the trial court excluded the statements of his codefendant Reed (see, People v. West, 72 N.Y.2d 941; People v. Hamlin, supra).
Moreover, the court did not err in permitting the amendment to the indictment sought by the People without objection by the defense counsel (see, People v. Reed, 168 A.D.2d 645 [decided herewith]).
The defendant's claim of error with regard to the imposition of sentence is also unconvincing. The court properly adjudicated the defendant a persistent felony offender. The fact that he received a sentence after trial which was greater than the sentence of the codefendants who pleaded guilty does not automatically establish that the sentencing court improperly increased his punishment due to his assertion of his right to a trial (see, People v. Patterson, 106 A.D.2d 520). Rather, the record demonstrates that the court weighed the relevant factors in determining the appropriate sentence, and the acceptable objectives of sentencing were satisfied (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The remaining contentions asserted on appeal are either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law, and do not warrant review in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Bracken, J.P., Harwood, O'Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.