People v. Kennedy

• Decision Date: 12 November 2010
• Citation: 910 N.Y.S.2d 602,78 A.D.3d 1477
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Troy L. KENNEDY, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

910 N.Y.S.2d 602 78 A.D.3d 1477 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Troy L. KENNEDY, Defendant-Appellant. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York. Nov. 12, 2010.

William G. Pixley, Rochester, for Defendant-Appellant.

Troy L. Kennedy, Defendant-Appellant Pro Se.

Jon E. Budelmann, District Attorney, Auburn (Christopher T. Valdina of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, SCONIERS, PINE, AND GORSKI, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of four counts each of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39[1] ) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.16[1] ). Defendant was sentenced to a seriesof concurrent and consecutive determinate terms of incarceration, each of which included a period of postrelease supervision. At the conclusion of sentencing, County Court stated that the aggregate period of postrelease supervision would be 12 years.

Contrary to the contention of defendant, the court properly denied his challenge for cause with respect to a prospective juror inasmuch as his contention that the prospective juror was not truthful during voir dire is based on mere speculation ( see People v. Toussaint, 74 A.D.3d 846, 902 N.Y.S.2d 165). Also contrary to the contention of defendant, the court did not err in refusing to permit him to ask additional questions of that prospective juror. The court was entitled to limit defendant's repetitive questioning of that prospective juror ( see CPL 270.15[1][c]; People v. Harris, 98 N.Y.2d 452, 482 n. 9, 749 N.Y.S.2d 766, 779 N.E.2d 705; People v. Pepper, 59 N.Y.2d 353, 358-359, 465 N.Y.S.2d 850, 452 N.E.2d 1178), and defendant failed to identify any new questions that he wished to ask her.

We reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence based on gaps in the chain of custody with respect to the drugs at issue. Contrary to defendant's implicit contention, the court properly admitted the drugs in evidence despite those alleged gaps. The police provided sufficient assurances of the identity and unchanged condition of the evidence ( see People v. Julian, 41 N.Y.2d 340, 342-343, 392 N.Y.S.2d 610, 360 N.E.2d 1310), and thus any alleged gaps in the chain of custody went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility ( see People v. Cleveland, 273 A.D.2d 787, 709 N.Y.S.2d 751, lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 864, 715 N.Y.S.2d 218, 738 N.E.2d 366). Furthermore, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we conclude that the verdict is not 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).

We reject the further contention of defendant that the court erred in denying his request for an adjournment to enable him to locate two witnesses to testify on his behalf. "[D]efendant's assertion that [the witnesses'] testimony would be material and favorable to the defense is supported by nothing more than the conclusory allegations of [defendant]" ( People v. Vredenburg, 200 A.D.2d 797, 799, 606 N.Y.S.2d 453, lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 859, 612 N.Y.S.2d 391, 634 N.E.2d 992; see People v. Daniels, 128 A.D.2d 632, 632-633, 512 N.Y.S.2d 881, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 645, 518 N.Y.S.2d 1037, 512 N.E.2d 563). Nor did the court err in denying defendant's mid-trial request for the issuance of subpoenas to compel the appearance of those witnesses. As noted, defendant failed to establish that their testimony would be material and favorable to him and, in any event, he made "no showing of a diligent and good-faith attempt to insure the witness[es'] presence at trial"before seeking to subpoena those witnesses ( People v. Perez, 249 A.D.2d 492, 493, 671 N.Y.S.2d 675, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 903, 680 N.Y.S.2d 67, 702 N.E.2d 852).

Defendant failed to preserve for our review the contention in his pro se supplemental brief that his due process rights were denied by the alleged violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial ( see People v. Bradberry, 68 A.D.3d 1688, 1690, 891 N.Y.S.2d 850, lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 838, 901 N.Y.S.2d 145, 927 N.E.2d 566). In any event, upon our review of the factors set forth in People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442, 445, 373 N.Y.S.2d 79, 335 N.E.2d 303, we conclude that defendant's contention lacks merit ( see People v. Doyle, 50 A.D.3d 1546, 856 N.Y.S.2d 786; People v. Jenkins, 2 A.D.3d 1390, 769 N.Y.S.2d 413).

Defendant's challenge to the hearsay evidence presented to the grand jury "is, in essence, a challenge to the sufficiencyof the [g]rand [j]ury evidence" ( People v. Cerda, 236 A.D.2d 292, 654 N.Y.S.2d 348), and that challenge is not reviewable on appeal from a judgment of conviction supported by legally...