Opinion
03-16-2017
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Judd WHITE, Defendant–Appellant.
Seymour W. James, Jr., The Legal Aid Society, New York (David A. Crow of counsel) and Cozen O'Connor, New York (Alexander Selarnick of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Susan Gliner of counsel) and Gibson Dunn, New York (Mary Beth Maloney of counsel), for respondent.
Seymour W. James, Jr., The Legal Aid Society, New York (David A. Crow of counsel) and Cozen O'Connor, New York (Alexander Selarnick of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Susan Gliner of counsel) and Gibson Dunn, New York (Mary Beth Maloney of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered January 15, 2015, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of six years, unanimously affirmed.
The court providently exercised its discretion in denying, without a hearing, defendant's CPL 330.30(2) motion to set aside the verdict on the ground of improper jury conduct. The only support for the motion was a letter from, and counsel's phone conversation with, one juror. Viewing the information supplied by this juror in a light most favorable to defendant, it only demonstrated that, during deliberations, two other jurors cited matters that were permissibly within the realm of personal life experiences, albeit ones not shared by all jurors (see People v. Arnold, 96 N.Y.2d 358, 364–368, 729 N.Y.S.2d 51, 753 N.E.2d 846 [2001] ; People v. Brown, 48 N.Y.2d 388, 393–394, 423 N.Y.S.2d 461, 399 N.E.2d 51 [1979] ), rather than the type of specialized training and expertise described in People v. Maragh, 94 N.Y.2d 569, 574, 708 N.Y.S.2d 44, 729 N.E.2d 701 (2000). Furthermore, a "motion is no substitute for an investigation to be made by counsel ... and a defendant is not entitled to a hearing based on expressions of hope that a hearing might reveal the essential facts" (People v. Brunson, 66 A.D.3d 594, 596, 888 N.Y.S.2d 22 [1st Dept.2009], lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 937, 895 N.Y.S.2d 328, 922 N.E.2d 917 [2010] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted] ).
Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal.
TOM, J.P., ACOSTA, KAPNICK, KAHN, GESMER, JJ., concur.