PEOPLE v. McCALLIE (2007)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15[3] ).   Because defendant failed to object to Supreme Court's ultimate Sandoval ruling, he failed to preserve for our review his contention that the ruling constitutes an abuse of discretion (see People v. McMillon, 32 A.D.3d 1300, 821 N.Y.S.2d 531, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 903, 826 N.Y.S.2d 612, 860 N.E.2d 74;  People v. Trammell, 28 A.D.3d 1219, 815 N.Y.S.2d 391, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 795, 821 N.Y.S.2d 825, 854 N.E.2d 1289).   We reject the contention of defendant that the jury convicted him on the basis of his prior convictions.   The court instructed the jury that it should not consider defendant's prior arrests and convictions except as a means of evaluating defendant's credibility, and the jury is presumed to have followed that instruction (see People v. Parker, 227 A.D.2d 107, 108, 641 N.Y.S.2d 655, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 940, 647 N.Y.S.2d 173, 670 N.E.2d 457).   Defendant's contention that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence is not preserved for our review (see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919), and we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672), notwithstanding minor discrepancies in the accounts of the People's witnesses (see People v. Fincher, 225 A.D.2d 900, 901, 639 N.Y.S.2d 170, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 984, 649 N.Y.S.2d 391, 672 N.E.2d 617).   Viewing the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this case, in totality and as of the time of the representation, we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation (see generally People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584;  People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).

 We reject defendant's contention that the court violated Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 when it admitted into evidence prior certificates of conviction and a certified fingerprint analysis during the CPL 400.16 hearing;  those materials were admissible pursuant to CPL 60.60 (see People v. Williams, 30 A.D.3d 980, 982-983, 818 N.Y.S.2d 694, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 852, 823 N.Y.S.2d 782, 857 N.E.2d 77).   We also reject defendant's contention that the court erred in failing to conduct an inquiry into the allegedly irreconcilable differences between defendant and defense counsel.   The allegations of defendant did not establish a serious complaint concerning his relationship with defense counsel and thus did not suggest a serious possibility of good cause for substitution of counsel (see People v. Randle [Appeal No. 2], 21 A.D.3d 1341, 801 N.Y.S.2d 188, lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 757, 810 N.Y.S.2d 425, 843 N.E.2d 1165).   Indeed, the record makes clear that the crux of the differences was that defendant insisted that he should not be charged with anything greater than petit larceny, thereafter accusing defense counsel of conspiracy when defense counsel was unable to persuade the People to adopt defendant's viewpoint (see generally People v. Johnson, 292 A.D.2d 871, 871-872, 738 N.Y.S.2d 916, lv. denied 98 N.Y.2d 652, 745 N.Y.S.2d 511, 772 N.E.2d 614).

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

MEMORANDUM: