PEOPLE v. SANTIAGO (1999)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of promoting prison contraband in the first degree (Penal Law § 205.25 [2] ).   There is no merit to his contention that the evidence is legally insufficient 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).   The People presented proof that defendant assaulted another inmate while possessing an 11-inch shank;  that immediately after the incident defendant surrendered the shank to prison officials;  and that defendant previously received a copy of the rules of inmate behavior written in English and Spanish prohibiting the possession of weapons.

 Defendant was not denied a fair trial by County Court's ruling that he could be cross-examined with respect to prior convictions of robbery, bail jumping and criminal possession of a weapon.   Those convictions “demonstrated his willingness to place his interests above those of society” (People v. Allen, 215 A.D.2d 674, 628 N.Y.S.2d 139, lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 789, 632 N.Y.S.2d 502, 656 N.E.2d 601;  see also, People v. Nichols, 257 A.D.2d 851, 684 N.Y.S.2d 662, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 901, 689 N.Y.S.2d 713, 711 N.E.2d 989;  People v. Santiago, 251 A.D.2d 239, 674 N.Y.S.2d 684, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 985, 683 N.Y.S.2d 767, 706 N.E.2d 755).  “Questioning concerning other crimes is not automatically precluded simply because the crimes * * * are similar to the crimes charged” (People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292, 464 N.Y.S.2d 458, 451 N.E.2d 216;  see, People v. Breneman, 192 A.D.2d 1084, 596 N.Y.S.2d 607, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 1011, 600 N.Y.S.2d 199, 616 N.E.2d 856).

 The court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant as a persistent felony offender, and, in light of defendant's numerous prior convictions for crimes involving weapons, the maximum sentence of 25 years to life is not unduly harsh or severe.

Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the interpreter who served during the trial and sentencing was not qualified to do so (see, CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Wong, 256 A.D.2d 724, 725, 682 N.Y.S.2d 689, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 903, 689 N.Y.S.2d 715, 711 N.E.2d 991;  People v. Hatzipavlou, 175 A.D.2d 969, 573 N.Y.S.2d 425, lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 827, 580 N.Y.S.2d 208, 588 N.E.2d 106), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15[6][a] ).

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: