PEOPLE v. PARRIS (2006)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of, inter alia, murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25[2] ) and assault in the second degree (§ 120.05[2] ) after he shot and injured one victim and then shot and killed a second victim. We reject the contention of defendant that Supreme Court erred in refusing to give a justification charge based on his belief that the murder victim posed a threat to him.   Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant, we conclude that there is no reasonable view of the evidence to support the justification defense on that theory (see People v. Gentile, 23 A.D.3d 1075, 804 N.Y.S.2d 199, lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 813, 812 N.Y.S.2d 452, 845 N.E.2d 1283;  see generally People v. McManus, 67 N.Y.2d 541, 549, 505 N.Y.S.2d 43, 496 N.E.2d 202;  People v. Padgett, 60 N.Y.2d 142, 144-145, 468 N.Y.S.2d 854, 456 N.E.2d 795).   Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contention with respect to the court's Sandoval ruling (see People v. Ponder, 19 A.D.3d 1041, 1043, 796 N.Y.S.2d 472, lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 809, 803 N.Y.S.2d 38, 836 N.E.2d 1161).   In any event, the court's Sandoval ruling, pursuant to which the People were allowed to cross-examine defendant with respect to a prior robbery conviction, does not constitute an abuse of discretion (see People v. Nichols, 302 A.D.2d 953, 755 N.Y.S.2d 545, lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 657, 760 N.Y.S.2d 121, 790 N.E.2d 295;  People v. Freeney, 291 A.D.2d 913, 914, 737 N.Y.S.2d 751, lv. denied 98 N.Y.2d 637, 744 N.Y.S.2d 766, 771 N.E.2d 839). We reject defendant's contention that the sentence is illegal.   The evidence established that defendant fired several gunshots at the vehicle driven by the first victim, striking him in the leg, and then fired approximately seven shots at the second victim, who was standing next to defendant.   Based on defendant's commission of those separate acts, the court properly imposed consecutive sentences for assault and murder (see People v. Brathwaite, 63 N.Y.2d 839, 842-843, 482 N.Y.S.2d 253, 472 N.E.2d 29;   People v. Tam, 260 A.D.2d 242, 688 N.Y.S.2d 521, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 1028, 697 N.Y.S.2d 587, 719 N.E.2d 948).   We have considered defendant's remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit.

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

MEMORANDUM: