PEOPLE v. MORALES (1999)

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered May 2, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 7 1/212 to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

 Defendant was not deprived of his right to be present during jury selection.   The court reporter's notations relied upon by defendant fail to establish his absence from robing room conferences when read in the context of the entire voir dire record, along with all reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom (compare, People v. Acevedo, 256 A.D.2d 162, 683 N.Y.S.2d 499, with People v. Madera, 216 A.D.2d 89, 90, 628 N.Y.S.2d 87).

 The record establishes that defendant received effective assistance of counsel.   Counsel's failure to object to certain testimony relating to identification could not have deprived defendant of a fair trial (see, People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-714, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584;  People v. Hobot, 84 N.Y.2d 1021, 1024, 622 N.Y.S.2d 675, 646 N.E.2d 1102).

 Since defendant elected to present evidence, the People did not shift the burden of proof by bringing to the jury's attention, through cross-examination and summation, defendant's failure to produce supportive evidence (see, People v. Tankleff, 84 N.Y.2d 992, 994, 622 N.Y.S.2d 503, 646 N.E.2d 805;  People v. Overlee, 236 A.D.2d 133, 142-143, 666 N.Y.S.2d 572, lv. denied, 91 N.Y.2d 976, 672 N.Y.S.2d 855, 695 N.E.2d 724).

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.

Defendant's remaining arguments are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice.   Were we to review these claims, we would find that they would not warrant reversal.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.