People v. Rolon

• Citation: 145 A.D.2d 658,536 N.Y.S.2d 991
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Angel ROLON, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 30 December 1988
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

Page 991

536 N.Y.S.2d 991

145 A.D.2d 658

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Angel ROLON, Appellant.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

December 30, 1988

John F. Clennan, Ronkonkoma, for appellant. Angel Rolon, pro se. Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood, Ann Bordley and Amy Appelbaum, of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.), rendered May 30, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. The trial court properly denied the defendant's pretrial motions for a Wade hearing. There was no identification procedure employed by the police in this case, and, therefore, no need for a Wade hearing (see, People v. Dukes, 97 A.D.2d 445, 467 N.Y.S.2d 287; see also, People v. Thompson, 129 A.D.2d 655, 514 N.Y.S.2d 270). The defendant's claim that the trial court unduly interfered in the proceedings is not preserved for appellate review as a matter of law (see, People v. Charleston, 56 N.Y.2d 886, 453 N.Y.S.2d 399, 438 N.E.2d 1114; People v. Dickson, 112 A.D.2d 312, 491 N.Y.S.2d 759). In any event, because the trial court's questioning of the witnesses was designed to clarify confusing testimony and facilitate the orderly and expeditious progress of the trial, there was no prejudice to the defendant (People v. Yut Wai Tom, 53 N.Y.2d 44, 439 N.Y.S.2d 896, 422 N.E.2d 556). We also reject the defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The defense counsel made appropriate pretrial motions, presented cogent opening and closing arguments, conducted extensive cross-examination of the People's witnesses and raised appropriate objections (see, People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 497 N.Y.S.2d 903, 488 N.E.2d 834; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400). The defendant was, therefore, afforded meaningful representation. We decline to disturb the sentence imposed upon the defendant as it was within the bounds of the applicable sentencing statute and not excessive (see, People v. Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302, 437 N.Y.S.2d 961, 419 N.E.2d 864; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675). We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.

THOMPSON,...