PEOPLE v. SANTIAGO (2003)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Silverman, J.), rendered May 30, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 22 years to life and 16 years to life, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The court's Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see People v. Hayes, 97 N.Y.2d 203, 738 N.Y.S.2d 663, 764 N.E.2d 963;  People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 458-459, 611 N.Y.S.2d 118, 633 N.E.2d 472;  People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292, 464 N.Y.S.2d 458, 451 N.E.2d 216).   The court expressly stated that it was permitting inquiry about defendant's prior robbery convictions because their theft-related aspect rendered them highly probative of defendant's credibility, and defendant's argument that the court considered impermissible criteria misreads the plain language of the court's decision.

 Defendant received a full opportunity to attack the credibility of the People's witnesses.   The court properly exercised its discretion in precluding defendant from introducing an alleged prior inconsistent statement by a People's witness that had little or no probative value on any material issue (see People v. Duncan, 46 N.Y.2d 74, 80, 412 N.Y.S.2d 833, 385 N.E.2d 572, cert. denied 442 U.S. 910, 99 S.Ct. 2823, 61 L.Ed.2d 275).   Accordingly, there was no impairment of defendant's right to confront witnesses and present a defense (see Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 678-679, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674;  Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 689-690, 106 S.Ct. 2142, 90 L.Ed.2d 636).

 The court properly declined to charge third-degree robbery as a lesser included offense.   There is no reasonable view of the evidence that defendant used any type of force other than the display of what appeared to be a firearm.

Defendant's constitutional challenge to the procedure under which he was sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit (see People v. Rosen, 96 N.Y.2d 329, 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).