PEOPLE v. COMPTON (2000)

 Defendant appeals from judgments convicting him after a jury trial of three counts each of criminal possession and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16[1];  § 220.39 [1] ).   He was sentenced as a persistent felony offender to concurrent indeterminate terms of incarceration of 25 years to life on each count.   There is no merit to his contention that County Court erred in adjudicating defendant a persistent felony offender.   The certificates of disposition attested to by the Clerk of Bronx County stating that defendant previously was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39) and manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20) constitute presumptive evidence of those convictions (see, CPL 60.60[1] ).   The sentences are not unduly harsh or severe.

There is no merit to defendant's contentions that the convictions are not supported by legally sufficient evidence and the verdicts are contrary to the weight of the evidence (see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).   The People established a proper chain of custody of the contraband (see, People v. Wynn, 172 A.D.2d 1038, 569 N.Y.S.2d 297, lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 928, 573 N.Y.S.2d 480, 577 N.E.2d 1072;  People v. Steiner, 148 A.D.2d 980, 981, 539 N.Y.S.2d 217).

The court did not err in refusing to conduct a Wade hearing.   Defendant failed to demonstrate a legal or factual basis for suppression (see, CPL 710.60[3];  People v. Rodriguez, 79 N.Y.2d 445, 452, 583 N.Y.S.2d 814, 593 N.E.2d 268).   Likewise, the court properly struck as irrelevant the testimony of a defense witness and properly precluded on hearsay grounds the testimony of another defense witness.

Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the prosecutor improperly asked him during cross-examination whether a prosecution witness was a liar and inquired about defendant's pending civil suit against the City of Utica (see, People v. Edwards, 167 A.D.2d 864, 561 N.Y.S.2d 964, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 877, 568 N.Y.S.2d 920, 571 N.E.2d 90), 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] ).

 We agree with defendant that the court erred by deferring to the recommendation of court officers and in directing, over defendant's objection, that a defense witness testify while in shackles (see, People v. Gonzalez, 115 A.D.2d 899, 901, 496 N.Y.S.2d 796, appeal dismissed 68 N.Y.2d 995, 510 N.Y.S.2d 564, 503 N.E.2d 120) and without otherwise setting forth a justifiable basis for its decision (cf., People v. La Boy, 91 A.D.2d 1102, 1103, 458 N.Y.S.2d 361).   We conclude, however, that defendant was not denied a fair trial (cf., People v. Gonzalez, supra).

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: