Citation Numbers: 82 A.D.3d 1593, 919 N.Y.2d 651
Filed Date: 3/25/2011
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/1/2024
Defendant now appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of the six counts in the indictment and sentencing him, inter alia, as a persistent felony offender to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 18 years to life on each felony count. We reject the contentions of defendant that the persistent felony offender sentencing scheme is unconstitutional (see Portalatin v Graham, 624 F3d 69, 93-94 [2010]), that County Court (Leone, J.) sentenced him as a persistent felony offender for exercising his right to a jury trial and thus that such sentencing was vindictive (see People v Miller, 65 NY2d 502, 507-508 [1985], cert denied 474 US 951 [1985]; see generally People v Young, 94 NY2d 171, 177-180 [1999], rearg denied 94 NY2d 876 [2000]), and that his sentence is unduly harsh and severe. Also contrary to defendant’s contention, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), is legally sufficient to establish defendant’s identity as the perpetrator of the crimes (see People v Jackson, 78 AD3d 1685 [2010]), and to establish that the board wielded by defendant constituted a dangerous instrument within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (13) (see Matter of Shakiea B., 53 AD3d 1057, 1059 [2008]). We reject the contention of defendant that reversal is required based upon the procedure employed by the court after receiving a note from the jury that expressed concern about defendant’s notetaking during jury selection but contained no substantive inquiry by
As the People correctly concede, however, count three of the indictment, charging defendant with burglary in the second degree, must be dismissed as a lesser inclusory concurrent count of count two, charging defendant with burglary in the first degree (see People v Skinner, 211 AD2d 979, 980 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 741 [1995]; People v Gloss, 83 AD2d 782 [1981]). We therefore modify the judgment accordingly. We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that none warrants reversal of the judgment or further modification thereof. Present — Centra, J.P, Garni, Lindley, Green and Gorski, JJ.