Opinion
May 23, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by providing that all of the sentences shall run concurrently; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant and his two codefendants robbed and shot a man to death outside a Queens restaurant. All three confessed to the murder after they were apprehended by the police.
On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his request to strike two prospective jurors for cause. One of the jurors had two nephews in prison, and the other stated that, should the defendant invoke his Fifth Amendment right not to testify at trial, he would wonder why the defendant did not testify.
Both prospective jurors, upon being questioned by the court, stated unequivocally that they would be able to decide the case solely on the evidence adduced at trial and that they would follow the instructions given to them by the court. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in refusing to excuse the challenged jurors for cause (see, CPL 270.20 [b]; People v. Williams, 63 N.Y.2d 882; People v. Blyden, 55 N.Y.2d 73; People v. Biondo, 41 N.Y.2d 483, cert denied 434 U.S. 928).
The defendant correctly contends that the imposition of consecutive sentences is illegal under the facts of this case (see, Penal Law § 70.25; People v. Smalls, 185 A.D.2d 863; People v. Nelson, 171 A.D.2d 702; cf., People v. Mebert, 194 A.D.2d 809). Accordingly, we modify the sentences to make them run concurrently with one another.
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including those found in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Ritter, J.P., Copertino, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.