Analogizing synthetic marihuana with marihuana, defendant avers that possession of a small amount of synthetic marihuana does not constitute possession of dangerous contraband and that the indictment therefore did not allege every element of the charged crime. Even if we were to agree with defendant that synthetic marihuana should be deemed the equivalent of marihuana (seePeople v. McLamore, 191 A.D.3d 1413, 1414–1415, 141 N.Y.S.3d 813 [4th Dept. 2021] [conjecturing that synthetic marihuana should be viewed in the same manner as marihuana, given that the former "is a synthetic drug that mimics the effects of THC, the active ingredient in marihuana"], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 958, 147 N.Y.S.3d 508, 170 N.E.3d 382 [2021] ), the indictment made no mention of the quantity of synthetic marihuana that defendant possessed, and, as defendant recognizes, the presence of aggravating circumstances and/or possession of "larger amounts of [synthetic] marihuana could constitute dangerous contraband" ( People v. Trank, 58 A.D.3d at 1077, 872 N.Y.S.2d 595 ; seePeople v. Finley, 10 N.Y.3d at 658, 862 N.Y.S.2d 1, 891 N.E.2d 1165 ). Thus, "[t]he failure of the indictment to allege the quantity of [synthetic] marihuana did not constitute a jurisdictional defect.
Analogizing synthetic marihuana with marihuana, defendant avers that possession of a small amount of synthetic marihuana does not constitute possession of dangerous contraband and that the indictment therefore did not allege every element of the charged crime. Even if we were to agree with defendant that synthetic marihuana should be deemed the equivalent of marihuana (see People v McLamore, 191 A.D.3d 1413, 1414-1415 [4th Dept 2021] [conjecturing that synthetic marihuana should be viewed in the same manner as marihuana, given that the former "is a synthetic drug that mimics the effects of THC, the active ingredient in marihuana"], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 958 [2021]), the indictment made no mention of the quantity of synthetic marihuana that defendant possessed, and, as defendant recognizes, the presence of aggravating circumstances and/or possession of "larger amounts of [synthetic] marihuana could constitute dangerous contraband" (People v Trank, 58 A.D.3d at 1077; see People v Finley, 10 N.Y.3d at 658). Thus, "[t]he failure of the indictment to allege the quantity of [synthetic] marihuana did not constitute a jurisdictional defect.
Disposition: Applications for Criminal Leave to appeal denied Decision Reported Below: 4th Dept: 191 A.D.3d 1413 (Wyoming)
Finally, we note that the uniform sentence and commitment sheet incorrectly states that defendant was convicted of three counts under Penal Law § 130.22, and thus it must be amended to reflect that these convictions were under Penal Law § 130.55 (see generally People v McLamore, 191 A.D.3d 1413, 1415 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 958 [2021]).
Inasmuch as we conclude that there was no prosecutorial misconduct, we reject defendant's related contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel's failure to object to certain alleged improprieties during the prosecutor's summation (seePeople v. Cordell , 188 A.D.3d 1620, 1621-1622, 135 N.Y.S.3d 546 [4th Dept. 2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 1056, 141 N.Y.S.3d 761, 165 N.E.3d 687 [2021] ). Finally, we note that the uniform sentence and commitment sheet incorrectly states that defendant was convicted of three counts under Penal Law § 130.22, and thus it must be amended to reflect that these convictions were under Penal Law § 130.55 (see generallyPeople v. McLamore , 191 A.D.3d 1413, 1415, 141 N.Y.S.3d 813 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 958, 147 N.Y.S.3d 508, 170 N.E.3d 382 [2021] ).
Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see generally CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19 [1995]), and we decline to exercise our power to review them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Finally, we note that the uniform sentence and commitment sheet incorrectly states that defendant was convicted upon a plea of guilty, and it must therefore be amended to reflect that he was convicted upon a jury verdict (see People v McLamore, 191 A.D.3d 1413, 1415 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 958 [2021]).
Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see generally CPL 470.05 [2] ; People v. Gray , 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919 [1995] ), and we decline to exercise our power to review them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a] ). Finally, we note that the uniform sentence and commitment sheet incorrectly states that defendant was convicted upon a plea of guilty, and it must therefore be amended to reflect that he was convicted upon a jury verdict (seePeople v. McLamore , 191 A.D.3d 1413, 1415, 141 N.Y.S.3d 813 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 958, 147 N.Y.S.3d 508, 170 N.E.3d 382 [2021] ).