People v. Duren, 2013-00985

• Decision Date: 15 July 2015
• Docket Number: 2013-00985
• Citation: 13 N.Y.S.3d 512,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 06165,130 A.D.3d 842
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Ronnie DUREN, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

130 A.D.3d 842
13 N.Y.S.3d 512
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 06165

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent
v.
Ronnie DUREN, appellant.

2013-00985

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

July 15, 2015.

13 N.Y.S.3d 512

Michael A. Fiechter, Bellmore, N.Y., for appellant.

Madeline Singas, Acting District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Laurie K. Gibbons and Sarah S. Rabinowitz of counsel), for respondent.

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SANDRA L. SGROI, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.

Opinion

130 A.D.3d 842

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Honorof, J.), rendered December 12, 2012, as amended January 16, 2013, convicting him of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts),

13 N.Y.S.3d 513

criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, assault in the first degree (two counts), and attempted assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the convictions of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, vacating the sentences imposed thereon, and dismissing those counts of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the admission of several autopsy photographs was proper, as the photos were “neither excessively gruesome nor introduced for the sole purpose of arousing the jurors' passions and prejudicing the defendant” (People v. Byrd, 116 A.D.3d 875, 876, 983 N.Y.S.2d 406 ; see People v. Wende, 122 A.D.3d 884, 885, 996 N.Y.S.2d 672 ), but rather, were “properly admitted to illustrate and corroborate the testimony of the medical examiner who performed the autopsy” (People v. Lynch, 92 A.D.3d 805, 806, 938 N.Y.S.2d 340 ).

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, as defense counsel did not base his motion to dismiss on any specific argument raised on appeal (see CPL 470.05 [2] ; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919 ). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v....