People v. Matthews

Citation38 N.Y.S.3d 307,142 A.D.3d 1354,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 06350
Parties The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Burgess MATTHEWS, Jr., Defendant–Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.)
Decision Date30 September 2016
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division

142 A.D.3d 1354
38 N.Y.S.3d 307
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 06350

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Burgess MATTHEWS, Jr., Defendant–Appellant.
(Appeal No. 1.)

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

Sept. 30, 2016.


38 N.Y.S.3d 309

Trevett Cristo Salzer & Andolina P.C., Rochester (Eric M. Dolan of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Scott Myles of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

142 A.D.3d 1354

In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.75[1][a] ), endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10[1] ) and rape in the third degree (§ 130.25[2] ). In appeal No. 2, defendant appeals from a resentence involving the conviction of course of sexual conduct against a child. We note at the outset that,

142 A.D.3d 1355

inasmuch as the sentence on that conviction in appeal No. 1 was superseded by the resentence in appeal No. 2, the appeal from the judgment in appeal No. 1 insofar as it imposed sentence on that conviction must be dismissed (see People v. Weathington [Appeal No. 2], 141 A.D.3d 1173, 1173, 34 N.Y.S.3d 859 ). Defendant raises no contention with respect to the resentence in appeal No. 2, however, and we therefore dismiss the appeal therefrom (see People v. Drake, 138 A.D.3d 1396, 1396, 31 N.Y.S.3d 328 ).

We reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in admitting in evidence photographs depicting the victim at ages 10, 13 and 15. The photographs were relevant to illustrate the victim's age at the time the crimes occurred (see People v. Khan, 88 A.D.3d 1014, 1015, 931 N.Y.S.2d 393, lv. denied 18 N.Y.3d 884, 939 N.Y.S.2d 754, 963 N.E.2d 131 ). In any event, inasmuch as there was overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt and no significant probability that the jury would have otherwise acquitted him, we conclude that, “[e]ven if the court erred in admitting the photographs, the error [is] harmless” (People v. Murray, 140 A.D.2d 949, 950, 529 N.Y.S.2d 628, lv. denied 72 N.Y.2d 960, 534 N.Y.S.2d 673, 531 N.E.2d 305 ; see People v. Marra, 96 A.D.3d 1623, 1626, 946 N.Y.S.2d 783, affd. 21 N.Y.3d 979, 971 N.Y.S.2d 491, 994 N.E.2d 387 ).

We reject defendant's contention that defense counsel should have been permitted to withdraw from representing defendant, inasmuch as defense counsel never sought permission to withdraw. There is no merit to defendant's further contention that the court erred in failing to inquire into his request for substitution of counsel. Defendant's nonspecific complaint that defense counsel had been dishonest with him did not constitute a request for substitution of counsel and thus “did not trigger the need for an inquiry into whether good cause existed for substitution” (People v. Mitchell, 129 A.D.3d 1319, 1321, 11 N.Y.S.3d 731, lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 1041, 22 N.Y.S.3d 171, 43 N.E.3d 381 ).

38 N.Y.S.3d 310

The court properly exercised its discretion in granting the People's Molineux application, inasmuch as the evidence that the People proposed to introduce at trial had substantial probative value with respect to issues other than criminal propensity, and the probative value of the evidence outweighed the danger of undue prejudice to defendant (see People v. Cass, 18 N.Y.3d 553, 560, 942 N.Y.S.2d 416, 965 N.E.2d 918 ). The evidence of uncharged acts of physical and sexual abuse against the victim was relevant to complete the narrative and provide background information (see People v. Dorm, 12 N.Y.3d 16, 19, 874 N.Y.S.2d 866, 903 N.E.2d 263 ; People v. Washington, 122 A.D.3d 1406, 1408, 997 N.Y.S.2d 194, lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 1173, 15 N.Y.S.3d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • People v. Burney
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • April 22, 2022
    ...1507, 1508, 128 N.Y.S.3d 736 [4th Dept. 2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 974, 138 N.Y.S.3d 454, 162 N.E.3d 683 [2020] ; People v. Matthews , 142 A.D.3d 1354, 1356, 38 N.Y.S.3d 307 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1125, 51 N.Y.S.3d 22, 73 N.E.3d 362 [2016]). Defendant next contends in appeal ......
  • People v. Boyd
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • March 16, 2018
    ...640 [4th Dept. 2017] ). The portion of the telephone call played to the jury is more probative than prejudicial (see People v. Matthews, 142 A.D.3d 1354, 1355, 38 N.Y.S.3d 307 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1125, 51 N.Y.S.3d 22, 73 N.E.3d 362 [2016] ), and " ‘the court's limiting ins......
  • People v. Mandes
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • January 9, 2019
    ...and the victims (see People v. Stevens, 76 N.Y.2d 833, 835, 560 N.Y.S.2d 119, 559 N.E.2d 1278 ; People v. Matthews, 142 A..D3d 1354, 38 N.Y.S.3d 307 ; People v. Khan, 88 A.D.3d 1014, 1015, 931 N.Y.S.2d 393 ). The defendant contends in his pro se supplemental brief that his statutory and con......
  • People v. Burney
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • April 22, 2022
    ...prejudice to defendant (see People v Murray, 185 A.D.3d 1507, 1508 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 974 [2020]; People v Matthews, 142 A.D.3d 1354, 1356 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1125 [2016]). Defendant next contends in appeal Nos. 2 and 3 that the burglary conviction in each......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT