People v. Parker

• Decision Date: 29 June 2010
• Citation: 74 A.D.3d 1365,903 N.Y.S.2d 264
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Jermaine PARKER, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

903 N.Y.S.2d 264

74 A.D.3d 1365

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Jermaine PARKER, appellant.

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

June 29, 2010.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Erica Horwitz of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Keith Dolan, and Ron Carny of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chambers, J.), rendered June 19, 2006, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (four counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, that there was insufficient evidence to corroborate his accomplice's testimony is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Pergya, 53 A.D.3d 631, 632, 862 N.Y.S.2d 101; People v. Jay, 41 A.D.3d 615, 838 N.Y.S.2d 596). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Spradley, 50 A.D.3d 931, 854 N.Y.S.2d 670). Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15(5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).

The defendant's contentions that the prosecutor improperly bolstered the testimony of a witness by eliciting testimony as to a prior consistent statement, that the prosecutor improperly impeached her own witness on direct examination ( see CPL 60.35; People v. Fitzpatrick, 40 N.Y.2d 44, 386 N.Y.S.2d 28, 351 N.E.2d 675), and that theprosecutor made improper remarks on summation are unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470. 05[2] ). In any event, the challenged remarks and conduct, both individually and cumulatively, constituted harmless error ( see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787; People v. Doran, 10 A.D.3d 425, 780 N.Y.S.2d 782).

The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, as the record reveals that defense counsel provided meaningful representation ( see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).

The defendant's contention that he was arrested without probable cause, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Wallace, 304 A.D.2d 680, 757 N.Y.S.2d 494; People v. Nixon, 240 A.D.2d 764, 660 N.Y.S.2d 1006; People v. Feliciano, 185 A.D.2d 359, 360, 586 N.Y.S.2d 623). In any event, this contention is without merit (see People v. Torres, 236 A.D.2d 431, 653 N.Y.S.2d 611; People v. Rosa, 231 A.D.2d 534, 535, 665 N.Y.S.2d 668; People v. Johnson, 174 A.D.2d 694, 694-695, 571 N.Y.S.2d 550).

In his supplemental pro se brief, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence presented to the grand jury. "Since the defendant's guilt was provenbeyond a reasonable doubt at trial, there can be no appellate review of the issue of whether a prima facie case was presented to the grand jury" ( People v. Folkes, 43...