PEOPLE v. WILEY (2008)

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25[2] ).   The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), is legally sufficient to support the conviction (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).   Contrary to defendant's contentions, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the People's expert to testify that defendant's DNA profile was maintained in a DNA database (see People v. Meekins, 34 A.D.3d 843, 846, 828 N.Y.S.2d 83, affd. 10 N.Y.3d 136, 855 N.Y.S.2d 20, 884 N.E.2d 1019), and defendant received meaningful representation (see generally People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).   Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contentions that the court improperly expressed an opinion on the strength of the People's case during its charge (see generally People v. Davenport, 38 A.D.3d 1064, 1066, 831 N.Y.S.2d 587), and that he was denied a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct on summation (see People v. Searles, 28 A.D.3d 1205, 812 N.Y.S.2d 922, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 817, 822 N.Y.S.2d 492, 855 N.E.2d 808).   We decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6][a] ).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: