Opinion
273 KA 12-01593
03-20-2015
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kenneth M. FOWLER, Defendant–Appellant.
Leanne Lapp, Public Defender, Canandaigua, D.J. & J.A. Cirando, Esqs., Syracuse (Bradley E. Keem of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. R. Michael Tantillo, District Attorney, Canandaigua (Brian D. DENNIS of Counsel), for Respondent.
Leanne Lapp, Public Defender, Canandaigua, D.J. & J.A. Cirando, Esqs., Syracuse (Bradley E. Keem of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
R. Michael Tantillo, District Attorney, Canandaigua (Brian D. DENNIS of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND DeJOSEPH, JJ.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of two counts of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10[1], [2][a] ) and one count of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree (§ 135.10). We reject defendant's contention that the conviction of robbery is not supported by legally sufficient evidence. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see generally People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we conclude that there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences to establish defendant's liability as an accessory in causing the victim's injuries and forcibly stealing the victim's property, and to establish that he was aided by another person (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ; People v. Lucas, 291 A.D.2d 890, 891, 737 N.Y.S.2d 732 ). Furthermore, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Although we agree with defendant that County Court abused its discretion in its Sandoval ruling in allowing the prosecutor to question him concerning a juvenile delinquency adjudication (see People v. Gray, 84 N.Y.2d 709, 712, 622 N.Y.S.2d 223, 646 N.E.2d 444 ), we conclude that the error is harmless (see generally People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241–242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787 ). We otherwise reject defendant's contention that the court's Sandoval ruling was an abuse of discretion (see generally People v. Reid, 34 A.D.3d 1273, 1274, 825 N.Y.S.2d 619, lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 884, 832 N.Y.S.2d 496, 864 N.E.2d 626 ). We also reject defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial based on prosecutorial misconduct (see People v. Jones, 114 A.D.3d 1239, 1241, 980 N.Y.S.2d 670, lv. denied 23 N.Y.3d 1038, 993 N.Y.S.2d 252 ; People v. Koonce, 111 A.D.3d 1277, 1279, 974 N.Y.S.2d 207 ). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was penalized for asserting his right to a trial, and that contention lacks merit in any event (see People v. Miller, 115 A.D.3d 1302, 1305–1306, 982 N.Y.S.2d 656, lv. denied 23 N.Y.3d 1040, 993 N.Y.S.2d 254 ). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.