PEOPLE v. WRIGHT (2007)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35[1] ).   Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence (see People v. Hines, 97 N.Y.2d 56, 61, 736 N.Y.S.2d 643, 762 N.E.2d 329, rearg. denied 97 N.Y.2d 678, 738 N.Y.S.2d 292, 764 N.E.2d 396;  People v. Allen, 1 A.D.3d 947, 948, 767 N.Y.S.2d 717, lv. denied 1 N.Y.3d 594, 776 N.Y.S.2d 226, 808 N.E.2d 362) and, in any event, that contention lacks merit (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).   Also contrary to defendant's contention, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally id.).   We reject defendant's further contention that County Court erred in its application of CPL 60.42, commonly known as the rape shield law.  “Evidence of the victim's prior sexual conduct did not fall within any of the exceptions set forth in CPL 60.42(1) through (4), and defendant failed to make an offer of proof demonstrating that such evidence was relevant and admissible pursuant to CPL 60.42(5)” (People v. Brink, 30 A.D.3d 1014, 1015, 815 N.Y.S.2d 861, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 810, 822 N.Y.S.2d 485, 855 N.E.2d 801;  see People v. White, 261 A.D.2d 653, 655-656, 690 N.Y.S.2d 300, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 1029, 697 N.Y.S.2d 588, 719 N.E.2d 949;  see generally People v. Mathis, 8 A.D.3d 966, 967, 778 N.Y.S.2d 613, lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 709, 785 N.Y.S.2d 37, 818 N.E.2d 679;  People v. Mount, 285 A.D.2d 899, 899-900, 727 N.Y.S.2d 819, lv. denied 97 N.Y.2d 642, 735 N.Y.S.2d 499, 761 N.E.2d 4).   Finally, the prior felony convictions were not obtained in violation of defendant's constitutional rights, and thus the court properly adjudicated defendant a second violent felony offender (see People v. Clark, 15 A.D.3d 864, 866, 788 N.Y.S.2d 800, lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 885, 798 N.Y.S.2d 730, 831 N.E.2d 975, 5 N.Y.3d 787, 801 N.Y.S.2d 807, 835 N.E.2d 667).

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

MEMORANDUM: