People v. Graham

• Decision Date: 07 June 2013
• Citation: 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 04150,967 N.Y.S.2d 315,107 A.D.3d 1421
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Clifford GRAHAM, Defendant–Appellant.

107 A.D.3d 1421
967 N.Y.S.2d 315
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 04150

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Clifford GRAHAM, Defendant–Appellant.

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

June 7, 2013.

[967 N.Y.S.2d 316]

Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Philip Rothschild of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (James P. Maxwell of Counsel), for Respondent.

[967 N.Y.S.2d 317]

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, WHALEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

[107 A.D.3d 1421]Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of two counts each of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the first degree (Penal Law § 170.30) and petit larceny (§ 155.25). We reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence ( see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). The People presented evidence that defendant passed counterfeit $20 bills at two different locations in three separate transactions, and the jury was entitled to reject the testimony of defendant that he was unaware that the bills were counterfeit ( see People v. Craven, 48 A.D.3d 1183, 1184, 851 N.Y.S.2d 318,lv. denied10 N.Y.3d 861, 860 N.Y.S.2d 487, 890 N.E.2d 250;People v. Cotton, 197 A.D.2d 897, 897–898, 602 N.Y.S.2d 252,lv. denied82 N.Y.2d 893, 610 N.Y.S.2d 160, 632 N.E.2d 470). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that Supreme Court deprived him of a fair trial by failing to sua sponte instruct the jury that defendant was charged in connection with two separate incidents, i.e., the incidents at the two separate locations, and that evidence of guilt with respect to one of the incidents could not be considered as evidence of guilt with respect to the other ( seeCPL 470.05[2] ). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( seeCPL 470.15[6][a] ).

[107 A.D.3d 1422]We agree with defendant that the court's Sandoval ruling constitutes an abuse of discretion. Although the “exercise of a trial court's Sandoval discretion should not be disturbed merely because the court did not provide a detailed recitation of its underlying reasoning” ( People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 459, 611 N.Y.S.2d 118, 633 N.E.2d 472), the court in this case failed to set forth any basis for its Sandoval ruling. We thus conclude that the court “abdicated its responsibility to balance the Sandoval factors and determine that the probative value of the evidence outweighed the potential prejudice to defendant” ( People v. Clark, 42 A.D.3d 957, 959, 838 N.Y.S.2d 760,lv. denied9 N.Y.3d 960, 848 N.Y.S.2d 29, 878...