THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK RESPONDENT v. RONNIE WOODS DEFENDANT APPELLANT (2010)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

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

Memorandum:  Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of burglary in the first degree (Penal Law § 140.30[2] ).   Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court erred in allowing the People to present evidence of certain prior bad acts inasmuch as defendant did not object to the evidence on that ground (see CPL 470.05[2];  see also People v. Moore, 41 AD3d 1202, 1204, lv denied 9 NY3d 879).   In any event, the testimony of the victim's boyfriend that defendant had asked him to sell drugs and that he had repeatedly refused was relevant to defendant's motive and his relationship with the victim (see People v. Chebere, 292 A.D.2d 323, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 673;  People v. Guiterrez, 272 A.D.2d 58;  People v. Pucci, 77 A.D.2d 916, lv denied 51 N.Y.2d 883).   Further, the probative value of that testimony outweighed its potential for prejudice (see People v. Kelly, 71 AD3d 1520).

Defendant made only a general motion for a trial order of dismissal and thus failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence (see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19).   In any event, that challenge lacks merit (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495).   Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in failing to afford him the opportunity to provide input concerning the court's response to two of the jury notes (see People v. Peller, 8 AD3d 1123, lv denied 3 NY3d 679).   In any event, the record establishes that defendant and defense counsel were present when the court read those jury notes and that defendant thus had ample opportunity to provide input with respect to the court's responses (see generally People v. Brown, 23 AD3d 491, lv denied 6 NY3d 774).

Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495).   Finally, we reject the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel (see generally People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147;  People v. Lewis, 67 AD3d 1396, lv denied 14 NY3d 772;  People v. Maryon, 20 AD3d 911, 912-913, lv denied 5 NY3d 854).

Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court