Opinion
December 17, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Cerbone, J.).
The evidence of guilt was legally sufficient and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The jury saw and heard the witnesses and resolved any inconsistencies or credibility issues against defendant, and we see no reason to disturb the verdict.
By affirmatively agreeing to redaction as the proper remedy for the Bruton problem raised in his motion to sever, and by failing to otherwise object when the nontestifying codefendant's redacted statement and confession were read into evidence, defendant expressly waived and failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that the court violated his right of confrontation by admitting that evidence at trial ( see, People v. Aramas, 250 A.D.2d 478, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 922), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to reach this issue, we would find that the redactions and the court's instructions prevented any possible prejudice.
By remaining silent while the court reviewed the verdict sheet with the jury and submitted the annotated verdict sheet to the jury, defendant implicitly consented to the submission of the verdict sheet ( see, People v. Daniels, 244 A.D.2d 867, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 971).
The court properly imposed consecutive sentences for the murder and first-degree assault convictions. Although the murder victim and the first-degree assault victim were both wounded during defendant's initial firing of a machine gun, defendant then returned to shoot the murder victim again as that victim was lying injured on the ground. This clearly constituted a separate and distinct act sufficient for the imposition of consecutive sentences ( see, Penal Law § 70.25; People v. Laureano, 87 N.Y.2d 640, 643; People v. Nieves, 111 A.D.2d 83, lv denied 65 N.Y.2d 984).
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Williams, JJ.