People v. Perez
| Decision Date | 26 October 2010 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Rafael PEREZ, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Lisa Napoli of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Jodi L. Mandel, and Rhiana L. Swartz], of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Parker, J.), rendered February 21, 2008, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that he was deprived of a fair trial as a result of prosecutorial misconduct during summation. The defendant raised no objection during summation to the comments challenged on appeal, and failed to move for a mistrial ( see CPL 470.05 [2];People v. Garguilio, 57 A.D.3d 797, 798, 870 N.Y.S.2d 380). In any event, most of the challenged remarks were within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing arguments, fair comment on the evidence, or responsive to arguments and theories presented in the defense summation ( see People v. Halm, 81 N.Y.2d 819, 821, 595 N.Y.S.2d 380, 611 N.E.2d 281; People v. Gordon, 306 A.D.2d 422, 760 N.Y.S.2d 873; People v. Turner, 214 A.D.2d 594, 625 N.Y.S.2d 233). Any error resulting from the remaining challenged remarks was harmless ( see People v. Smalls, 65 A.D.3d 708, 883 N.Y.S.2d 910; People v. Dorgan, 42 A.D.3d 505, 838 N.Y.S.2d 787).
In light of his counsel's zealous and competent defense throughout the course of the trial, we reject the defendant's contention that his counsel's failure to object to the challenged summation remarks constituted ineffective assistance of counsel ( see People v. Williams, 8 N.Y.3d 854, 855-856, 831 N.Y.S.2d 367, 863 N.E.2d 588; People v. Taylor, 1 N.Y.3d 174, 176, 770 N.Y.S.2d 711, 802 N.E.2d 1109; People v. Tonge, 93 N.Y.2d 838, 840, 688 N.Y.S.2d 88, 710 N.E.2d 653; People v. Gonzalez, 44 A.D.3d 790, 791, 843 N.Y.S.2d 417).
Finally, the sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Martinez, 58 A.D.3d 754, 756, 872 N.Y.S.2d 159; People v. Jordan, 36 A.D.3d 948, 826 N.Y.S.2d 510; People v. Ochoa, 179 A.D.2d 689, 690, 579 N.Y.S.2d 114; People v. Marti, 131 A.D.2d 597, 598, 516 N.Y.S.2d 599).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bruno
... ... Smith, 144 A.D.2d 709, 709, 535 N.Y.S.2d 11 ).The defendant's contention that the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court for manslaughter in the second degree was unduly harsh and excessive is without merit (see People v. Perez, 77 A.D.3d 974, 974, 909 N.Y.S.2d 644 ; People v. Marti, 131 A.D.2d 597, 598, 516 N.Y.S.2d 599 ; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ... ...
-
People v. Spencer
... ... Salnave, 41 A.D.3d 872, 874, 838 N.Y.S.2d 657). The remaining summation comments challenged by the defendant constituted fair comment on the evidence or were responsive to arguments and theories presented in the defense summation ( see People v. Perez, 77 A.D.3d 974, 909 N.Y.S.2d 644; People v. Gordon, 306 A.D.2d 422, 760 N.Y.S.2d 873; People v. Turner, 214 A.D.2d 594, 625 N.Y.S.2d 233).[87 A.D.3d 754] The defendant's remaining contentions are without ... ...
-
People v. Narine
... ... McDonald, 82 A.D.3d 1125, 1126, 918 N.Y.S.2d 784; People v. McCall, 80 A.D.3d 626, 628, 914 N.Y.S.2d 291; People v. Perez, 77 A.D.3d 974, 909 N.Y.S.2d 644). The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675). The defendant's remaining contention is ... ...
-
People v. Bisnauth
... ... Perez, 77 A.D.3d 974, 909 N.Y.S.2d 644). The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675). The defendant's remaining contention is ... ...