Opinion
Submitted June 8, 2000.
July 12, 2000.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (F. Rivera, J.), rendered November 18, 1997, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
M. Sue Wycoff, New York, N.Y. (Frank J. Loss of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Diane R. Eisner, and Kellie Gasink of counsel), for respondent.
Before: DANIEL W. JOY, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's present claim that the investigating detective's testimony impermissibly conveyed to the jury the idea that witnesses had identified him from so-called "mug" books is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, contrary to the defendant's contention, the testimony of the detective did not convey that idea to the jury. There was nothing improper in the detective's testimony that he conducted an investigation which ultimately focused on the defendant (see, People v. Birmingham, 168 A.D.2d 503).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions, as raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.