People v. Wright

• Decision Date: 06 December 2011
• Citation: 933 N.Y.S.2d 887,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 08959,90 A.D.3d 679
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. William WRIGHT, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 08959

90 A.D.3d 679

933 N.Y.S.2d 887

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.William WRIGHT, appellant.

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

Dec. 6, 2011.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Alexis A. Ascher of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Thomas M. Ross, and Catherine Dagonese of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), rendered April 7, 2008, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation is unpreserved for appellate review as he did not object to the remarks at issue ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 953, 441 N.Y.S.2d 442, 424 N.E.2d 276; People v. Clemente, 84 A.D.3d 829, 830–831, 922 N.Y.S.2d 193; People v. Charles, 57 A.D.3d 556, 556, 869 N.Y.S.2d 564; People v. Gill, 54 A.D.3d 965, 966, 864 N.Y.S.2d 135). In any event, the challenged remarks were fair comment on the evidence, permissible rhetorical comment, or responsive to defense counsel's summation ( see People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109–110, 383 N.Y.S.2d 204, 347 N.E.2d 564).

The defendant's contention concerning the trial court's charge on the issue of justification also is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to object to the charge as given or request a supplemental charge ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Brooks, 71 A.D.3d 1043, 1043, 896 N.Y.S.2d 881; People v. Peterkin, 23 A.D.3d 678, 678, 804 N.Y.S.2d 269; People v. Moultrie, 6 A.D.3d 730, 730, 775 N.Y.S.2d 555). In any event, the trial court's charge, viewed in its entirety, adequately conveyed the appropriate standard to the jury ( see People v. Wesley, 76 N.Y.2d 555, 559, 561 N.Y.S.2d 707, 563 N.E.2d 21; People v. Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96, 114, 506 N.Y.S.2d 18, 497 N.E.2d 41; People v. Moultrie, 6 A.D.3d at 730, 775 N.Y.S.2d 555; People v. Martinez, 243 A.D.2d 732, 732, 665 N.Y.S.2d 528).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel ( see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 714, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400; People v. Brooks, 71 A.D.3d at 1043, 896 N.Y.S.2d 881).

The defendant's remaining contentions, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit.

SKELOS, J.P., HALL, LOT...