Opinion
June 6, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claims of error in the prosecutor's summation and in the court's charge concerning evaluation of credibility are not preserved for appellate review. No objection to either the summation or the charge was raised at trial (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, the Assistant District Attorney's summation was within the bounds of proper advocacy (see, People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 399). Similarly, the court's charge properly led the jury to consider the robbery victim's prior driving while intoxicated conviction and, at the same time, properly left the ultimate issue of credibility to the jury's resolution (see, People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 U.S. 932; 1 CJI[NY] 7.20).
Further, in view of the seriousness and violence of the crime committed in this case while the defendant was on parole and his prior criminal record, which included a similar robbery conviction, the sentence imposed was not an improvident exercise of discretion.
We have considered the defendant's remaining claims, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Brown, Lawrence and Spatt, JJ., concur.