Opinion
2012-12-19
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Isaiah JOHNSON, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jessica M. McNamara of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Gretchen Robinson of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jessica M. McNamara of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Gretchen Robinson of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hanophy, J.), rendered October 5, 2010, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling ( see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413) reflects a failure to exercise discretion is unpreserved for appellate review ( cf. People v. Davis, 50 A.D.3d 1589, 1590, 855 N.Y.S.2d 803). In any event, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in rendering its Sandoval ruling ( see People v. Brightly, 91 A.D.3d 667, 668, 935 N.Y.S.2d 890;*528People v. Taylor, 18 A.D.3d 783, 784, 794 N.Y.S.2d 919;People v. Coward, 248 A.D.2d 397, 397–398, 669 N.Y.S.2d 825). We note that “an exercise of a trial court's Sandoval discretion should not be disturbed merely because the court did not provide a detailed recitation of its underlying reasoning, particularly where, as here, the basis of the court's decision may be inferred from the parties' arguments” ( People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 459, 611 N.Y.S.2d 118, 633 N.E.2d 472 [citation omitted] ).
The defendant's contention that the Sandoval ruling precluded him from offering the only testimony that would have been favorable to his case is similarly unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, the contention is without merit. Not only is the defendant's contention belied by the record, but “the possible unavailability of other witnesses” does not mandate a Sandoval ruling in a defendant's favor ( People v. Hayes, 97 N.Y.2d 203, 208, 738 N.Y.S.2d 663, 764 N.E.2d 963;see People v. Garcia, 45 A.D.3d 860, 847 N.Y.S.2d 147).