PEOPLE v. IGBINOSUN (2007)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, scheme to defraud in the first degree (Penal Law § 190.65[1][b] ), grand larceny in the third degree (§ 155.35), and two counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (§ 170.25).   Defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on, inter alia, defense counsel's failure to register a timely objection to the testimony of a prosecution witness that defendant's fingerprint card listed three aliases.   Defense counsel's belated objection to that testimony was not sustained, and defendant has failed to show that a timely objection would have been sustained (see generally People v. Matthews, 27 A.D.3d 1115, 1116, 811 N.Y.S.2d 514).   The record establishes that defense counsel pursued a credible trial strategy with respect to the evidence linking defendant to the crimes, based on County Court's pretrial rulings, and we conclude that defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel (see generally People v. Flores, 84 N.Y.2d 184, 187, 615 N.Y.S.2d 662, 639 N.E.2d 19;  People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).

 Contrary to defendant's further contention, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.   Although defendant may be deported upon completion of his sentence, that fact alone does not warrant a downward modification of his sentence.   Also contrary to defendant's contention, the court's imposition of consecutive sentences was proper inasmuch as “ ‘the crimes [for which consecutive sentences were imposed were] committed through separate and distinct acts' ” (People v. Remington, 305 A.D.2d 1021, 1022, 758 N.Y.S.2d 588, lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 598, 766 N.Y.S.2d 174, 798 N.E.2d 358;  see People v. Salcedo, 92 N.Y.2d 1019, 1021, 684 N.Y.S.2d 480, 707 N.E.2d 435;  People v. Ramirez, 89 N.Y.2d 444, 451, 654 N.Y.S.2d 998, 677 N.E.2d 722).

We have examined defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.

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

MEMORANDUM: