Opinion
2000-00015
Submitted April 17, 2003.
May 12, 2003.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D'Emic, J.), rendered December 16, 1999, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree (four counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Robert E. Nicholson, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Victor Barrall, Jodi L. Mandel, Laurie I. Moroff, and Ester Noe of counsel), for respondent.
Before: DANIEL F. LUCIANO, J.P., THOMAS A. ADAMS, SANDRA L. TOWNES, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court properly ruled that evidence that the defendant called the complainant at work just hours after he appeared at the complainant's home in violation of an order of protection was admissible to complete the narrative of events (see People v. Gines, 36 N.Y.2d 932; People v. Farrington, 272 A.D.2d 624, 625; People v. Crossland, 251 A.D.2d 509, 510; People v. DeLeon, 177 A.D.2d 641, 642). Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was provided with "meaningful representation" (People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708). Furthermore, the trial court properly permitted the prosecution to withdraw its initial plea offer, as the defendant never unequivocally accepted the offer (see People v. Johnson, 181 A.D.2d 832).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
LUCIANO, J.P., ADAMS, TOWNES and CRANE, JJ., concur.