Filed Date: 3/27/2000
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/1/2024
—Appeal by the defen
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The branch of the defendant’s motion which was to suppress physical evidence was properly denied without a hearing since his allegations were factually insufficient to support his claim that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him (see, People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415).
The defendant’s contentions regarding the court’s failure to instruct the jury as to his alibi defense and alleged errors in other portions of the jury charge are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). Moreover, we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, CPL 470.15 [3] [c]) given the strong evidence of the defendant’s guilt and the fact that the trial court’s charge, viewed in its entirety, adequately conveyed to the jury that the prosecution bore the burden of proof (see, People v Warren, 76 NY2d 773; People v Colon, 122 AD2d 151; People v Beckles, 115 AD2d 749).
Under the facts of this case, the sentence imposed was not harsh or excessive (see, CPL 470.15 [6]; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Santucci, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.