People v. Portalatin
Citation | 2005 NY Slip Op 04065,795 N.Y.S.2d 334,18 A.D.3d 673 |
Decision Date | 16 May 2005 |
Docket Number | 2003-03719. |
Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CARLOS PORTALATIN, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the prosecutor's allegedly improper questions during cross-examination and comments during summation constituted reversible error is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Smith, 13 AD3d 401 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 803 [2005]). In any event, contrary to the defendant's contention, the prosecutor's questioning of him on cross-examination and suggestion during summation that he tailored his testimony after hearing the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses, was not unduly prejudicial (see Portuondo v Agard, 529 US 61 [2000]; People v Allien, 302 AD2d 468, 469 [2003]; People v Lowery, 281 AD2d 491 [2001]). The prosecutor's attack on the defendant's credibility does not require reversal, and his comments on summation were fair responses to the defense counsel's summation (see People v Banks, 258 AD2d 525, 526 [1999]; People v Elliot, 216 AD2d 576 [1995]). As such, the prosecutor's questions and remarks were entirely within the bounds of fair comment.
The defendant's contentions that his sentencing as a persistent felony offender violated his constitutional rights to notice and a jury trial pursuant to Apprendi v New Jersey (530 US 466 [2000]), and that the Supreme Court did not comply with the procedural requirements of Penal Law § 70.10 and CPL 400.20 in adjudicating him a persistent felony offender, are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit (see People v Rosen, 96 NY2d 329 [2001], cert denied 534 US 899 [2001]; People v Cruz, 308 AD2d 458, 459 [2003]; People v Hudson, 296 AD2d 510, 511 [2002]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Portalatin v. Graham
...by the Supreme Court in Apprendi. On May 16, 2005, the Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, People v. Portalatin, 18 A.D.3d 673, 674, 795 N.Y.S.2d 334, 335 (2d Dep't 2005), and the New York Court of Appeals subsequently denied him leave to appeal, People v. Portalatin, 5 N.Y.3d 793, 79......
-
Portalatin v. Graham
...required by § 400.20. On May 16, 2005, the Appellate Division affirmed Portalatin's judgment of conviction. People v. Portalatin, 18 A.D.3d 673, 795 N.Y.S.2d 334 (2d Dep't 2005). The court found that the prosecutorial misconduct claim was unpreserved for appellate review and without merit, ......
-
Besser v. Walsh
...both unpreserved and without merit, the court affirmed his judgment of conviction and sentence on May 16, 2005. People v. Portalatin, 18 A.D.3d 673, 795 N.Y.S.2d 334, 335 (2005) (citing Rosen, 96 N.Y.2d 329, 728 N.Y.S.2d 407, 752 N.E.2d 844). On July 6, 2005, Portalatin's application for le......
-
People v. Wilson
...47; People v. Bryant, 39 A.D.3d 768, 769, 834 N.Y.S.2d 305; People v. Siriani, 27 A.D.3d 670, 811 N.Y.S.2d 127; People v. Portalatin, 18 A.D.3d 673, 674, 795 N.Y.S.2d 334; People v. Lowery, 281 A.D.2d 491, 491-492, 721 N.Y.S.2d 775). The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the ef......