Opinion
June 25, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Appelman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On November 3, 1987, the defendant stopped the complainant on the street, accused him of robbing his little brother, and ordered the complainant to go home with him to be identified by the boy. Protesting his innocence, the complainant followed the defendant for several blocks, when the defendant stopped, pointed to what appeared to be a handgun at his waist, and demanded his money. The complainant, who knew the defendant by sight and name, reported the incident to the police, identifying the defendant as the perpetrator.
On appeal, the defendant argues that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation deprived him of a fair trial, and that his sentence was excessive. The defendant's contentions are without merit.
The defendant did not object to the remarks in the prosecutor's summation complained of on appeal, with the result that any issue of law with respect thereto is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818). In any event, the prosecutor's remarks were a fair response to defense counsel's attempt to persuade the jury that the victim should not be believed because he had a criminal record (see, People v Marks, 6 N.Y.2d 67, cert denied 362 U.S. 912), and the prosecutor's exhortation to the jurors to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant on the basis of the evidence before them, without reference to the complainant's criminal background, was entirely proper (cf., People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105).
Given the defendant's repeated display of "total disregard of our laws and the rights of his fellow citizens" (People v Terry, 117 A.D.2d 761, 762), we find that the terms of imprisonment imposed were appropriate and should not be disturbed (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80), even though they are consecutive to the sentences imposed on his convictions under indictment No. 7901/87 and indictment No. 7925/87.
A supplemental pro se brief has been filed which sets forth the arguments of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. We have thoroughly reviewed these arguments and find them to be without merit (see, People v. Stokes, 162 A.D.2d 737 [decided herewith]). Mangano, P.J., Kunzeman, Rubin and Balletta, JJ., concur.