PEOPLE v. WRIGHT (2005)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of two counts of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [2], [4] ), and one count each of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03[2] ) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02[4] ).   We reject defendant's contention that the theory of the prosecution was impermissibly changed in the prosecutor's opening statement to reflect a theory not set forth in the indictment.   The indictment “fairly apprised defendant” of the theory of the People's case (People v. Medina, 233 A.D.2d 927, 927, 649 N.Y.S.2d 566, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 926, 654 N.Y.S.2d 728, 677 N.E.2d 300), and the slight variation in that theory did not affect defendant's liability for the crimes charged (see People v. Moore, 274 A.D.2d 959, 959-960, 710 N.Y.S.2d 231, lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 868, 715 N.Y.S.2d 223, 738 N.E.2d 371).

 We also reject defendant's contention that Supreme Court committed reversible error by allowing in evidence a hearsay statement that implicated defendant in drug dealing.   The testimony regarding the hearsay statement of a witness at the crime scene that she knew that defendant was selling drugs was not admitted to establish that defendant was in fact selling drugs.   Rather, that testimony was admitted to establish that defendant became angry after being threatened by the declarant and thus was prompted to remove from his pocket the gun that killed the victim (see People v. Davis, 58 N.Y.2d 1102, 1103, 462 N.Y.S.2d 816, 449 N.E.2d 710;  People v. Daniels, 265 A.D.2d 909, 910, 698 N.Y.S.2d 120, lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 878, 705 N.Y.S.2d 10, 726 N.E.2d 487;  People v. King, 217 A.D.2d 909, 910, 630 N.Y.S.2d 185, lv. denied 87 N.Y.2d 847, 638 N.Y.S.2d 606, 661 N.E.2d 1388).

Finally, we reject the contention of defendant that the statutory scheme in New York pursuant to which he was adjudicated a persistent felony offender is unconstitutional (see People v. Rosen, 96 N.Y.2d 329, 334-335, 728 N.Y.S.2d 407, 752 N.E.2d 844, cert. denied 534 U.S. 899, 122 S.Ct. 224, 151 L.Ed.2d 160;  People v. Johnson, 5 A.D.3d 1050, 773 N.Y.S.2d 655, lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 642, 782 N.Y.S.2d 413, 816 N.E.2d 203, 3 N.Y.3d 676, 784 N.Y.S.2d 14, 817 N.E.2d 832).   For the reasons set forth in our decision in People v. Nelson, 16 A.D.3d 1172, 791 N.Y.S.2d 236, 2005 WL 630012 [Mar. 18, 2005], we further reject defendant's contention that the decision of the Court of Appeals in Rosen is no longer valid in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403, reh. denied 542 U.S. 961, 125 S.Ct. 21, 159 L.Ed.2d 851.

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

MEMORANDUM: