Opinion
11779- 11779A- 11779B Ind. 1323/14 2548/16 3834/16
07-09-2020
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ruben RODRIGUEZ, Defendant–Appellant.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Scott H. Henney of counsel), for appellant. Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Emily Anne Aldridge of counsel), for respondent.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Scott H. Henney of counsel), for appellant.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Emily Anne Aldridge of counsel), for respondent.
Acosta, P.J., Manzanet–Daniels, Kapnick, Singh, Gonza´lez, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alvin M. Yearwood, J.), rendered April 13, 2017, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, and judgments (same court and Justice), rendered May 11, 2017, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of two counts of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of three years, to run consecutively to his murder sentence, and a term of five years, to run concurrently with his murder sentence, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations concerning identification and credibility. Furthermore, defendant was circumstantially linked to the crime by surveillance video. The court's Sandoval ruling, authorizing cross-examination as to defendant's recent guilty plea to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, was a provident exercise of discretion. That conviction was probative of defendant's credibility, and it was not unduly prejudicial (see People v. Sims, 47 A.D.3d 494, 849 N.Y.S.2d 254 [1st Dept. 2008], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 844, 859 N.Y.S.2d 403, 889 N.E.2d 90 [2008] ; People v. Deale, 26 A.D.3d 175, 808 N.Y.S.2d 682 [1st Dept. 2006], lv denied 6 N.Y.3d 893, 817 N.Y.S.2d 628, 850 N.E.2d 675 [2006] ).
Defendant's challenge to the criteria employed by the court in imposing sentence is a claim requiring preservation (see People v. Harrison, 82 N.Y.2d 693, 601 N.Y.S.2d 573, 619 N.E.2d 651 [1993] ; see also People v. Samms, 95 N.Y.2d 52, 58, 710 N.Y.S.2d 310, 731 N.E.2d 1118 [2000] ), and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the comments of the court on which defendant relies did not reflect either actual or apparent bias.
We perceive no basis for reducing defendant's sentences.