PEOPLE v. COLEMAN (2007)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered May 27, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of enterprise corruption, conspiracy in the fourth degree, burglary in the third degree, grand larceny in the second degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 11 1/313 to 34 years, unanimously affirmed.

 The court's Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see People v. Hayes, 97 N.Y.2d 203, 738 N.Y.S.2d 663, 764 N.E.2d 963 [2002];  People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 458-459, 611 N.Y.S.2d 118, 633 N.E.2d 472 [1994];  People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292, 464 N.Y.S.2d 458, 451 N.E.2d 216 [1983] ).   The court imposed appropriate limitations on the prosecutor's inquiry into defendant's extensive criminal record.   Defendant's theft-related convictions, although numerous, were highly relevant to his credibility.

The court did not unduly restrict defendant's cross-examination of witnesses (see People v. Corby, 6 N.Y.3d 231, 234-235, 811 N.Y.S.2d 613, 844 N.E.2d 1135 [2005];  see also Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 678-679, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 [1986] ).   Defendant's other complaints about the court's conduct of the trial, and his arguments concerning the discharge of a sick juror, are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice.   Were we to review these claims, we would find them without merit.

 The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's requests for appointment of an investigator and a sentencing mitigation expert.   Defendant failed to demonstrate any necessity for such assistance, but asserted only vague and speculative reasons why these individuals could help his defense (see People v. Dearstyne, 305 A.D.2d 850, 852-853, 761 N.Y.S.2d 118 [2003], lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 593, 766 N.Y.S.2d 169, 798 N.E.2d 353 [2003];  People v. Burgess, 270 A.D.2d 158, 706 N.Y.S.2d 316 [2000], lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 794, 711 N.Y.S.2d 162, 733 N.E.2d 234 [2000] ).

We have considered and rejected defendant's pro se claims.